Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pat Tillman

2009-04-27T13:52:27Z

Mikek: /* Arizona Cardinals */

[[Image:Pat Tillman.jpg|right|thumb| Pat Tillman]]
Corporal '''Pat Tillman''' (b. November 6th, 1976; d. April 22nd, 2004) was a scholar, athlete, leader, [[hero]], friend and an American [[patriot]]. After the terrorists attacks of [[9/11]], he gave up a lucrative [[NFL]] career with the [[Arizona Cardinals]] to fight for his country as an Army Ranger, he died fighting in [[Afghanistan]].

==Early Years==
Born in [[San Jose]], [[California]] to Mary and Patrick Tillman, he was the oldest of three brothers. Pat attended Leland High School from 1991 to 1994. He led his team to the Central Coast Section Division I Football Championship his senior year and earned co-Player of the Year honors. Pat earned a scholarship to [[Arizona State University]].

==Arizona State==
In 1996, he helped lead the Sun Devils to the 1997 [[Rose Bowl]] after an undefeated regular season. <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_asu.php Arizona State University] Pat Tillman Foundation</ref> Pat would come to dominate the position of linebacker earning him three selections to the All-Pac-10 Team and in 1997, he won the Pac-10 Conference's Defensive Player of the Year Award.

==Arizona Cardinals==
In the 1998 [[NFL]] draft, Pat was selected in the seventh round by Arizona as a starting safety. He recorded a franchise record 154 tackles in 2000. He pursued a master's degree in history from his alma mater. He volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club of [[Arizona]], Boys Hope Girls Hope and [[March of Dimes]]. In 2002, he married his high school sweetheart Marie. Upon returning from their [[honeymoon]], he told the Cardinals he was leaving football for the [[Army]].

*His words from an interview the day after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, speak for themselves: '''"At times like this you stop and think about just how good we have it, what kind of system we live in, and the freedoms we are allowed. A lot of my family has gone and fought in wars and I really haven't done a damn thing".''' <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_az_cardinals.php Arizona Cardinals] Pat Tillman Fundation</ref>

==US Army Ranger==
Pat and his brother Kevin both joined the military at the same time, volunteering for a three-year term. They were assigned to the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Both brothers served tours in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004. Pat's unit was ambushed as it traveled through the rugged, canyon terrain of Eastern Afghanistan. His heroic efforts to provide cover for his fellow soldiers as they escaped from the canyon led to his tragic death.

==Death==
The military's handling of his death as a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan spawned controversy. Originally he was reported as having been killed by enemy combatants, but later it emerged he was killed by friendly fire. It is standard military policy to investigate friendly fire incidents thoroughly before revealing any details. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5_2.html Army Spun Tale Around Ill-Fated Mission] Washington Post, December 6, 2004</ref> Charges of cover-up by his unit and his superiors surfaced. The incident attracted extra attention because the soldier had been a well-known professional athlete, and also because his death was controversial and the hostile [[liberal]] media wanted to attack any bad news of the [[Bush administration]]. After three-years of investigations his death was ruled a "friendly fire" incident, also known as fratricide.

==Awards and Honors==
{| style="float:right;text-align:right;"
|[[File:Purple_heart.jpg|center|thumb|150px| Purple Heart]]
|-
|[[File:SilverstarMedal.jpg|center|thumb|175px| Silver Star]]
|}
===Arizona State Sun Devils===
*1995, Second Team All Pac-10 All-Purpose Specialist
*1995, Academic All Pac-10 Honorable Mention
*1996, Second Team All Pac-10 Outside Linebacker
*1996, 1997 Clyde B. Smith Academic Award
*1996, 1997 GTE District VIII Academic All-American
*1996, 1997 Academic All Pac-10
*1997 East-West Shrine, Outside Linebacker, Game MVP
*1997 Burger King Scholarship Award Winner
*1997 Sporting News Honda Scholar-Athlete of the Year
*1997 Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year
*1997 ASU Most Valuable Player
*1997 All-American (2nd team)
*1997-98 Pac-10 Medalist (ASU male representative)
*1998 NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship Winner
*1998 Sun Angel Student Athlete of the Year

===Posthumously===
*Linking Sports and Communities; Tucson, Arizona
*Audie Murphy Patriotism Award; Decatur, Alabama
*Victor Awards; Las Vegas, Nevada
*NFL Hall of Fame Game; Canton, Ohio
*No.40 Retired with Cardinals
*San Pedro Sports Walk of Fame
*San Jose Sports Hall of Fame
*No.42 Retired at Arizona State
*Inaugural Lott Trophy Award
*Inducted as Honorary FDNY Member
*2005 Schow Donnelly Award
*U.S. Army Corporal rank
*U.S. Military Silver Star
*U.S. Military Purple Heart

==External Links==
*[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org The Pat Tillman Foundation]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tillman, Pat}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

Pat Tillman

2009-04-27T13:51:44Z

Mikek: /* Arizona Cardinals */

[[Image:Pat Tillman.jpg|right|thumb| Pat Tillman]]
Corporal '''Pat Tillman''' (b. November 6th, 1976; d. April 22nd, 2004) was a scholar, athlete, leader, [[hero]], friend and an American [[patriot]]. After the terrorists attacks of [[9/11]], he gave up a lucrative [[NFL]] career with the [[Arizona Cardinals]] to fight for his country as an Army Ranger, he died fighting in [[Afghanistan]].

==Early Years==
Born in [[San Jose]], [[California]] to Mary and Patrick Tillman, he was the oldest of three brothers. Pat attended Leland High School from 1991 to 1994. He led his team to the Central Coast Section Division I Football Championship his senior year and earned co-Player of the Year honors. Pat earned a scholarship to [[Arizona State University]].

==Arizona State==
In 1996, he helped lead the Sun Devils to the 1997 [[Rose Bowl]] after an undefeated regular season. <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_asu.php Arizona State University] Pat Tillman Foundation</ref> Pat would come to dominate the position of linebacker earning him three selections to the All-Pac-10 Team and in 1997, he won the Pac-10 Conference's Defensive Player of the Year Award.

==Arizona Cardinals==
In the 2000 [[NFL]] draft, Pat was selected in the seventh round by Arizona as a starting safety. He recorded a franchise record 154 tackles in 2000. He pursued a master's degree in history from his alma mater. He volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club of [[Arizona]], Boys Hope Girls Hope and [[March of Dimes]]. In 2002, he married his high school sweetheart Marie. Upon returning from their [[honeymoon]], he told the Cardinals he was leaving football for the [[Army]].

*His words from an interview the day after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, speak for themselves: '''"At times like this you stop and think about just how good we have it, what kind of system we live in, and the freedoms we are allowed. A lot of my family has gone and fought in wars and I really haven't done a damn thing".''' <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_az_cardinals.php Arizona Cardinals] Pat Tillman Fundation</ref>

==US Army Ranger==
Pat and his brother Kevin both joined the military at the same time, volunteering for a three-year term. They were assigned to the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Both brothers served tours in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004. Pat's unit was ambushed as it traveled through the rugged, canyon terrain of Eastern Afghanistan. His heroic efforts to provide cover for his fellow soldiers as they escaped from the canyon led to his tragic death.

==Death==
The military's handling of his death as a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan spawned controversy. Originally he was reported as having been killed by enemy combatants, but later it emerged he was killed by friendly fire. It is standard military policy to investigate friendly fire incidents thoroughly before revealing any details. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5_2.html Army Spun Tale Around Ill-Fated Mission] Washington Post, December 6, 2004</ref> Charges of cover-up by his unit and his superiors surfaced. The incident attracted extra attention because the soldier had been a well-known professional athlete, and also because his death was controversial and the hostile [[liberal]] media wanted to attack any bad news of the [[Bush administration]]. After three-years of investigations his death was ruled a "friendly fire" incident, also known as fratricide.

==Awards and Honors==
{| style="float:right;text-align:right;"
|[[File:Purple_heart.jpg|center|thumb|150px| Purple Heart]]
|-
|[[File:SilverstarMedal.jpg|center|thumb|175px| Silver Star]]
|}
===Arizona State Sun Devils===
*1995, Second Team All Pac-10 All-Purpose Specialist
*1995, Academic All Pac-10 Honorable Mention
*1996, Second Team All Pac-10 Outside Linebacker
*1996, 1997 Clyde B. Smith Academic Award
*1996, 1997 GTE District VIII Academic All-American
*1996, 1997 Academic All Pac-10
*1997 East-West Shrine, Outside Linebacker, Game MVP
*1997 Burger King Scholarship Award Winner
*1997 Sporting News Honda Scholar-Athlete of the Year
*1997 Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year
*1997 ASU Most Valuable Player
*1997 All-American (2nd team)
*1997-98 Pac-10 Medalist (ASU male representative)
*1998 NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship Winner
*1998 Sun Angel Student Athlete of the Year

===Posthumously===
*Linking Sports and Communities; Tucson, Arizona
*Audie Murphy Patriotism Award; Decatur, Alabama
*Victor Awards; Las Vegas, Nevada
*NFL Hall of Fame Game; Canton, Ohio
*No.40 Retired with Cardinals
*San Pedro Sports Walk of Fame
*San Jose Sports Hall of Fame
*No.42 Retired at Arizona State
*Inaugural Lott Trophy Award
*Inducted as Honorary FDNY Member
*2005 Schow Donnelly Award
*U.S. Army Corporal rank
*U.S. Military Silver Star
*U.S. Military Purple Heart

==External Links==
*[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org The Pat Tillman Foundation]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tillman, Pat}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

Pat Tillman

2009-04-27T13:50:13Z

Mikek: /* Arizona Cardinals */ Earned doesn't generally apply to statistics

[[Image:Pat Tillman.jpg|right|thumb| Pat Tillman]]
Corporal '''Pat Tillman''' (b. November 6th, 1976; d. April 22nd, 2004) was a scholar, athlete, leader, [[hero]], friend and an American [[patriot]]. After the terrorists attacks of [[9/11]], he gave up a lucrative [[NFL]] career with the [[Arizona Cardinals]] to fight for his country as an Army Ranger, he died fighting in [[Afghanistan]].

==Early Years==
Born in [[San Jose]], [[California]] to Mary and Patrick Tillman, he was the oldest of three brothers. Pat attended Leland High School from 1991 to 1994. He led his team to the Central Coast Section Division I Football Championship his senior year and earned co-Player of the Year honors. Pat earned a scholarship to [[Arizona State University]].

==Arizona State==
In 1996, he helped lead the Sun Devils to the 1997 [[Rose Bowl]] after an undefeated regular season. <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_asu.php Arizona State University] Pat Tillman Foundation</ref> Pat would come to dominate the position of linebacker earning him three selections to the All-Pac-10 Team and in 1997, he won the Pac-10 Conference's Defensive Player of the Year Award.

==Arizona Cardinals==
In the 2000 [[NFL]] draft, Pat was selected in the seventh round by Arizona as a starting safety. He recorded a franchise record with 154 tackles. He pursued a master's degree in history from his alma mater. He volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club of [[Arizona]], Boys Hope Girls Hope and [[March of Dimes]]. In 2002, he married his high school sweetheart Marie. Upon returning from their [[honeymoon]], he told the Cardinals he was leaving football for the [[Army]].

*His words from an interview the day after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, speak for themselves: '''"At times like this you stop and think about just how good we have it, what kind of system we live in, and the freedoms we are allowed. A lot of my family has gone and fought in wars and I really haven't done a damn thing".''' <ref>[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org/pat_az_cardinals.php Arizona Cardinals] Pat Tillman Fundation</ref>

==US Army Ranger==
Pat and his brother Kevin both joined the military at the same time, volunteering for a three-year term. They were assigned to the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Both brothers served tours in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004. Pat's unit was ambushed as it traveled through the rugged, canyon terrain of Eastern Afghanistan. His heroic efforts to provide cover for his fellow soldiers as they escaped from the canyon led to his tragic death.

==Death==
The military's handling of his death as a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan spawned controversy. Originally he was reported as having been killed by enemy combatants, but later it emerged he was killed by friendly fire. It is standard military policy to investigate friendly fire incidents thoroughly before revealing any details. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37679-2004Dec5_2.html Army Spun Tale Around Ill-Fated Mission] Washington Post, December 6, 2004</ref> Charges of cover-up by his unit and his superiors surfaced. The incident attracted extra attention because the soldier had been a well-known professional athlete, and also because his death was controversial and the hostile [[liberal]] media wanted to attack any bad news of the [[Bush administration]]. After three-years of investigations his death was ruled a "friendly fire" incident, also known as fratricide.

==Awards and Honors==
{| style="float:right;text-align:right;"
|[[File:Purple_heart.jpg|center|thumb|150px| Purple Heart]]
|-
|[[File:SilverstarMedal.jpg|center|thumb|175px| Silver Star]]
|}
===Arizona State Sun Devils===
*1995, Second Team All Pac-10 All-Purpose Specialist
*1995, Academic All Pac-10 Honorable Mention
*1996, Second Team All Pac-10 Outside Linebacker
*1996, 1997 Clyde B. Smith Academic Award
*1996, 1997 GTE District VIII Academic All-American
*1996, 1997 Academic All Pac-10
*1997 East-West Shrine, Outside Linebacker, Game MVP
*1997 Burger King Scholarship Award Winner
*1997 Sporting News Honda Scholar-Athlete of the Year
*1997 Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year
*1997 ASU Most Valuable Player
*1997 All-American (2nd team)
*1997-98 Pac-10 Medalist (ASU male representative)
*1998 NCAA Postgraduate Scholarship Winner
*1998 Sun Angel Student Athlete of the Year

===Posthumously===
*Linking Sports and Communities; Tucson, Arizona
*Audie Murphy Patriotism Award; Decatur, Alabama
*Victor Awards; Las Vegas, Nevada
*NFL Hall of Fame Game; Canton, Ohio
*No.40 Retired with Cardinals
*San Pedro Sports Walk of Fame
*San Jose Sports Hall of Fame
*No.42 Retired at Arizona State
*Inaugural Lott Trophy Award
*Inducted as Honorary FDNY Member
*2005 Schow Donnelly Award
*U.S. Army Corporal rank
*U.S. Military Silver Star
*U.S. Military Purple Heart

==External Links==
*[http://www.pattillmanfoundation.org The Pat Tillman Foundation]

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tillman, Pat}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-02-25T16:12:35Z

Mikek: edits

The '''American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''', called a "stimulus bill" by its supporters,
was passed by Congress on Friday the 13th of February 2009 after a vote sharply divided along party lines. It was supported by Democrats and by the [[Obama Administration]].
At $789 billion it is one of the most expensive proposals in world history, and is promoted by Democrats as an "[[economic stimulus]]" package that will revive the ailing U.S. economy (see [[Recession of 2008]]). They promised it would add or save 3.5 million jobs, at a time when over 500,000 jobs are disappearing every month.{{fact}} Conservatives complain that it is mostly spending to promote long-standing liberal causes. The Republican counterproposal was similar in scope but totaled only $500 billion. The bill passed the House and Senate with only three Republican senators voting for it and no Republican votes in the House and was signed by the president on February 17, 2009. In many ways the stimulus program resembled the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]] set up by [[Herbert Hoover]] and Congress in 1932 to deal with the [[Great Depression]].

==Provisions==
The details of the new act are still fuzzy, but the total of $789 billion includes $275 billion in tax cuts and $514 billion in new spending.

[[Image:Stim1.jpg|thumb|380px|Cartoonist Chuck Asay summarizes the debate]]

It includes about $170 billion for infrastructure projects such as highways, internet broadband and public-housing repairs. Of that, about $40 billion will go to the Energy Department. Congress hopes that department will hand out grants quickly, but the department has a long record of delays and slow action. The act will fund projects to create a "smart" electric grid, build electric automobiles, and make homes and buildings more energy efficient.<ref> Stephen Power and Neil King, Jr. "Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123448815417580333.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy '' Wall Street Journal'' Feb 13, 2009] </ref>

There will be $275 billion in tax cuts, including a $800 cash rebate to most families that will be spread out over a year, and an extra $250 quick payment to every person over age 65. The spending provisions cover a very wide variety of projects.<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29assess.html?hp David M. Herszenhorn, "Stimulus Package’s Components Vary in Speed and Efficiency," ''New York Times'' Jan. 28, 2009]</ref>

Responding to public outrage against bankers who paid themselves billions of dollars in bonuses while their banks were collapsing and investors losing 95% of their money, the bill imposes tight restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions. The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, affects banks that have received financial bailout funds. It prohibits cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Bonuses are limited to one-third of salary and must be in a form that is paid out only after the banks repay their loans from the government.<ref> Edmund L. Andrews and Eric Dash, "Stimulus Plan Sets New Limits on Executive Pay," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/economy/14pay.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009]</ref>

==Conservative criticism==
"The strategy under this bill is to throw billions of dollars in every bureaucratic direction, and cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R., Calif.) during debate. Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded, "We need to compare the cost of this package against the cost of doing nothing. The cost of nothing would be catastrophic."<ref> See [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123315486943524321.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy Jonathan Weisman, Greg Hitt And Naftali Bendavid, "House Passes Stimulus Package; $819 Billion Jolt to Economy Aims to Reshape Education, Health Care; Deficit to Soar," ''Wall Street Journal'' Jan. 29, 2009]</ref>

Liberals supporting the measure say it is aimed at preventing the economy from "collapsing" and at "restoring it to normal." Conservative critics claims it will do little to help the economy and is filled with non-essential spending.

The Heritage Foundation says, "But government spending plans do not stimulate the economy. They are based on the idea that feeding “new” money into the economy will create economic growth. But the money isn’t new—it’s either taxed or borrowed. It's essentially redistributed from one group of people to another, and no new money is created."<ref> See [http://www.askheritage.org/Issues.aspx?ID=41 Heritage statement]</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] says $347 billion more in interest will be the result, which brings the total plan over 1 trillion dollars. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/special-groups-line-piece-stimulus/ "Special-Interest Groups Line Up for a Piece of Stimulus" Fox News, Jan. 28, 2009]</ref> According to the CBO analysis, timely spending of the money will be hampered by bureaucratic delays of up to two-years and the inability of state and federal agencies to efficiently and effectively spend the massive inflows of new money. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=42725 "Almost Half the Spending in Stimulus Bill Would Not Happen for at Least Two Years, Says CBO Analysis," CNSNews, January 29, 2009]</ref>

House Republicans proposed a bill tilted more sharply toward tax cuts, which they say will generate the most economic activity the fastest. Their substitute proposed cutting individual and business taxes as well as reducing much of the bill’s spending; it was rejected by a party-line vote of 170-266. The failed GOP measure totaled about $479 billion, a little more than half the total passed by the Democrats.
==Support from state governors==
Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for aid that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care. Since their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities. The bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan, saying:
:"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression — anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion. Governors support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment."<ref>Beth Fouhy, "GOP governors press Congress to pass stimulus bill," [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_re_us/stimulus_gop_governors_6 Associated Press Feb. 1, 2009] </ref>
==Tax rebates==
The 2009 bill includes tax rebates that resemble in part the $152 billion stimulus law proposed by President [[George W. Bush]] and passed by Congress in Feb. 2008. However those 2008 rebates were mostly (85%) saved and used to pay down debts rather then make new purchases, so they may have failed to stimulate the economy in 2008. <ref>see [http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0631744820080208 Reuters, Feb. 8, 2008]</ref>
Some studies show that both the 2001 and 2008 tax rebates were both surprisingly effective. <ref>see [http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christian.broda/website/research/unrestricted/Stimulus%20Payments%20and%20Spending.pdf The Impact of the 2008 Tax Rebates on Consumer Spending: Preliminary Evidence]</ref><ref>see [http://pennyhill.com/index.php?lastcat=19&catname=Economic+Policy&viewdoc=RS22790 Tax Cuts for Short-Run Economic Stimulus: Recent Experiences]</ref>

==Congress==
The House of Representative passed the bill January 28, 2009 by a vote of 244-188; all Republicans cast a no vote as did eleven Democrats. The Senate needed 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, and the bill won the support of all 58 Democrats and 3 republicans. (There is one vacancy.)<ref> On the final vote on Feb. 13, 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy, recuperating in Florida from brain surgery, did not vote.</ref>

[[Image:House09vote.jpg|thumb|550px|Final vote in the House<ref> See [http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/70 ''New York Times'' Feb. 13, 2009] for individual Congressmen</ref>]]

"We all understand the economy is in crisis," Republican Senator John Cornyn said. But he and numerous Republicans announced they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, countered by alluding to the deficits that accumulated during the Bush administration and asking rhetorically, "Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last eight years?"

The final version easily passed the House, which requires only a majority vote and where the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage. Seven House Democrats voted against the final bill; no House Republicans voted for the final bill. In the Senate, 60 votes are required to avoid a filibuster that can kill legislation, and the Democrats have the advantage 58-41, with one vacancy as Minnesota continues to count votes from the Nov. 2008 election. Therefore at least two GOP senators are needed, and the three voted yes (two from Maine and one from Pennsylvania.)

Conservative Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, complained that 34 states and the District of Columbia will receive less Medicaid money than larger states. The stimulus package "shortchanges" Iowa by $185 million, he said. "It disregards the tough economic situation facing our state and others, and it fails to understand that the recession is hitting places like Iowa a little later than other states, but it is still hitting us."<ref> [http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19319 Grassley Press Release, Feb. 12, 2009]</ref> Grassley's efforts to amend the bill were voted down by the Democrats.

We all understand the economy is in crisis,” Mr. Cornyn said. But he was among numerous Republicans who said they would vote “no” rather than endorse a bloated bill that will be paid for by future generations of taxpayers.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, countered by alluding to the deficits that accumulated during the Bush administration and asking rhetorically, “Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last eight years?”

There was no suspense about the outcome earlier Friday in the House, since the Democrats hold a 255-to-178 advantage in the chamber.

==Non Essential items==
The people in charge of spending tax dollars are set to spend like never before and special interest groups are poised to be the recipients. House Minority whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., told the media Wednesday, “This was not a stimulus bill. It was a spending bill.” <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Stimulus_Democrats_GOP/2009/01/29/176427.html GOP Resisted as Stimulus Veered Off Target] NewsMax, January 29, 2009</ref>

Some of the "stimulus" proposals attacked by conservatives:

* $650 million for digital TV coupons
* $600 million for new cars for the federal government
* $6 billion for colleges/universities
* The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion <ref>That means more than a third of this plan's spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.</ref>
* $25 million for new [[ATV]] trails
* $400 million for the [[National Endowment for the Arts]]
* $400 million for global warming research
* $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending
* $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.
* $1.5 billion for a CO2 Reductions
* $4.2 billion for community organizing <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/vitter_acorn_payoff/2009/01/29/176317.html Sen. Vitter: ACORN Getting ‘Political Payoff’] NewsMax, January 29, 2009</ref>
* $3.5 billion for higher education facilities
* $400 million for [[HIV]] and chlamydia testing
* $150 million for The Smithsonian
* $81 billion for [[Medicaid]]
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers
* $54 billion to federal programs Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs
* $66 billion for education
* $650 million coupons to subsidize digital television conversion<ref>addref</ref>
* $572 million for Coast Guard improvements <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/ Stimulus stupidity alert] Michelle Malkin, January 28, 2009</ref>
* $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak
* $2 billion to help subsidize child care
* $2.25 billion for national parks
* $75 million for programs to help people quit smoking
* $44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department
* $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod
* $53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
* $32 billion for a "smart" electricity grid to minimize waste
* $13 billion for public housing, the homeless, renovate foreclosed homes
* $20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment
* $10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the costs of college tuition

Items removed from the House bill
* $200 million for new contraceptive service
* $20 million to renovate the National Mall

==External Links==
* [http://www.cq.com/displayfile.do?docid=3031034&productId=5 Official statement of tax effects], includes some spending on medical insurance and modernization
*[http://www.cq.com/displayfile.do?docid=3030932&productId=5 Official statement of new appropriations]
* [http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/issues/stopstimulus.html Stop The Stimulus!]
* [http://www.recovery.gov/ White House Recovery Website]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Logic

2009-02-17T14:25:03Z

Mikek: Undo revision 625934 by Sundance (Talk) vandalism

[[Logic]] ([[Greek]] λογίζω I reckon, I count, from λόγος a word) is a branch of [[philosophy]] that deals with and attempts to guide the faculty of human reason.

[[Aristotle]] was the first to formalize the practice of reasoning. In particular, Aristotle developed a formalization of the [[syllogism]] and the [[Square of Opposition]]. While [[Modus ponens]] and its complement [[Modus tollens]] were known to the Medievals, it is not clear when these central laws of deduction were first formalized.{{fact}}

The next easily-identifiable major development in logic comes from [[Boole]] in 1847 with the creation of [[Boolean algebra]]. In the 1870's, Peirce introduces a logic of quantifiers, followed by [[Gottlob Frege]]'s 1879 ''Begriffsschift'', which contains the first complete formalization of the propositional calculus. Frege's work was developed in service of his [[logicism|logicist]] project, which was shown to be inconsistent by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1903 with what is famously called [[Russell's paradox]].

By the 1950's, with the work of many logicians including [[Hilbert]], [[Emile Post]], [[Alfred Tarski]] and [[Kurt Goedel]], most of the major results in first-order logic had been proved, and in the 1960's [[Saul Kripke]] added a completeness proof for [[modal logic]].

Most logical systems are [[bivalent]]; that is, they admit only two truth-values. However, there is a fair amount of work done on non-bivalent systems of logic, especially [[intuitionist logic]] and [[relevance logic]]. In intuitionist logic, "true" and "false" are replaced with "proven true", "proven contradictory", and "not proven". In relevance logic, "neither true nor false" and "both true and false" are added to the standard two truth values. There is some debate about the value of these systems in philosophical circles, and [[Timothy Williamson]] claims to have a proof that any non-bivalent logic can be converted into a bivalent logic.

Formal logic requires, since Frege, a distinction between the [[object language]] and the [[metalanguage]]. The metalanguage is ordinarily a natural language like English or German, while the object language is a symbolic language with a limited alphabet and syntax.

== Informal Logic ==

The art of [[rhetoric]] is sometimes called "informal logic", and the classic [[logical fallacies|fallacies]] are often described as "logical fallacies", though, strictly speaking, most of them are simply emotionally effective ways to build an invalid argument. Generally speaking, "informal logic" consists of "common sense" and a collection of other rather loose rules that people employ while making most decisions and even in debate. It is unstructured, and depends largely on one's view of "the reasonable". The thresholds of what is "reasonable" and what is not, are inexact and subject to change with the receipt of sufficient contrary evidence--and again, what constitutes "sufficiency" in this context might vary from person to person.

== Deduction and Induction ==

Deductive logic is characterized by certainty: in a valid argument, when the premises are true, the conclusion '''must''' be true. The certainty, however, comes at a price. Take a classic argument of deductive logic:

'''Premises:'''
All men are mortal,
Socrates is a man
'''Conclusion:'''
Socrates is mortal

The conclusion is "contained" in the premises. In a sense the conclusion is "known" before it is elucidated. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal" is also less informative than the premises which imply not just that Socrates is mortal but that a lot of other beings (anyone for whom the term "is a man" applies) are also mortal. As a result deductive logic is not thought to add to knowledge, merely to clarify it.

Inductive logic is ampliative, but is famously less certain. In a good inductive argument, even when the premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. A classic example of an inductive argument is:

'''Premise:'''
All the many swans obversed have been white
'''Conclusion:'''
All swans are white

Before the discovery of Australia the premise was true someone following inductive logic would have reached the conclusion. Given the existence of black swans in Australia, however, that conclusion is false. [[David Hume]]'s 18th-century critique of induction remains a very pressing problem for disciplines like [[science]] which are commonly held to rely on inductive reasoning.

== Uses of logic in other disciplines ==
Logic is a necessary discipline in [[philosophy]], because it deals with how we study and interact with the world and with other people in it. Logic and [[mathematics]] are also closely connected, and much of mathematics can be reduced to first-order logic, though Goedel's [[Incompleteness theorem]] shows that not all of mathematics can be so reduced.

In [[computer science]], logic dictates how a machine will follow a set of instructions, including how to test its "world," evaluate it, and act according to that evaluation. Every computer language includes its own version of the language of symbolic logic, except that instead of establishing propositions, a computer following a program is usually choosing between and among different commands to execute.

Logic, and especially formal logic, inform the discipline of [[critical thinking]]--which, by no coincidence, takes its name from the [[Greek]] word for a judge. Indeed, judges and juries in courts of [[law]] must apply logic, both formal and informal, to arrive at their decisions. Formal logic will usually serve to state what obedience to a given body of law requires; informal logic must usually serve a trier of fact charged with deciding whether a given person was in obedience or in violation. The latter principle holds primarily because plaintiff and defendant in a court of law quite often ''do not'' agree on matters of fact.

== See Also ==
* [[Aristotle]], "Organon"
* [[Gottlob Frege]], "Begriffsschrift" and "The Foundations of Arithmetic"
* [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Albert N Whitehead]], "Principia Mathematica"
* [[Bas van Fraassen]] and [[J C Beall]], "Possibility and Paradox"
* Geoffrey Hunter, "Metalogic"

[[Category:Philosophy]]

World History Lecture Three

2009-02-16T18:26:47Z

Mikek: /* The Rise of Christianity */ edit

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

We take a break this week from Western Civilization and instead turn to the great ancient empires in the East: India and China. This requires learning about many new religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Then we conclude by returning to the Middle East and discussing the rise of Christianity.

Let's ask ourselves at the outset: why learn about any religion other than Christianity? Some Christians might conclude that, having found their faith, there is no reason to study non-Christian religions. When you find something good, then it is not advantageous to divert your time and energy to something less good.

But there are several valid reasons to study other religions. Christian missionaries, for example, need to understand the religions of the peoples they are attempting to convert. World leaders and travelers should understand the different religious views of peoples they encounter, even if they are not trying to convert them. In business it is important to know the values and beliefs of people with whom you deal.

Just as language shapes a culture's success and way of thinking, religion plays a large role in society. It is easy to see the differences between, for example, Islamic and Christian culture. Each has its own way of life, dress, social structure, and much more.

It is also possible that learning about other religions, and how they differ from Christianity, can strengthen one's appreciation of Christianity. Christianity has spread more than any other religion, moving from the Middle East to the Roman Empire to the Northern Barbarians in Europe and eventually to all of Africa and both North and South America. Islam, in contrast, has always been strongest in the Middle East, where it began, and hasn't spread nearly as wide as Christianity or as far across different social classes.

One final reason to study different religions and cultures is to see how distant peoples struggled with religious issues without the benefit of Christianity and came to certain conclusions about life, morals, and unseen truth.

This is a fascinating tale of very different cultures and religions. Let us begin:

== India ==

Little information survives concerning the history of ancient India. There was immigration into the region around 3000 B.C., or perhaps in the 2000s B.C., by people who called themselves "nobles" or "Aryans", a term we explained in the prior lecture. These immigrants spoke an Indo-European language which formed the basis for Sanskrit, which is the standard ancient language of India just as Latin is the standard ancient language of Europe. Yet while Latin is a dead language today, Sanskrit is still an official language in India. The scriptures of Hinduism are written in Sanskrit. The most sacred of these scripts form the [[Vedas]] and [[Upanishads]], which are considered to have the most authority, importance, and antiquity.

[[Image:India rel01.jpg|400px|right]]

=== Ancient India ===

The roots of ancient India were settlements in the fertile Indus River Valley, in what is now Pakistan and northwest India (see the map on the right). This was one of the most fertile regions in the world at the time, with plentiful farm products and animals. The region was surrounded in the north by the Himalaya mountains, protected to the west by the Indu Kush mountains, and insulated from the east by the Great Indian Desert. Just as Egypt had unique geographic protections against invasion by foreign enemies, so did the Indus River Valley. Two cities have been discovered there: Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa (pronounced "huh-ROP-uh"). Other small towns have also been unearthed. This ancient civilization existed from about 3000 B.C. to 1300 B.C., and its peak was 2600 to 1900 B.C. It is known as the Indus Valley Civilization or Harappan Civilization, named after its big city, Harappa. These early settlements existed long before ''classical'' Indian civilization, which thrived from 300 B.C. to A.D. 500 (similar in time to the Roman Empire). The early settlements of ancient India, dating back to 3000 B.C., are among the largest ancient civilizations we know of.

Writings have been found from ancient India, but no one has been able to decipher them yet. The reason these writings are so difficult to decipher is that the symbols are extremely tiny, and all the writings we have contain only a few of these symbols. This is a good task for young experts in language!

In terms of technology, the inhabitants of these ancient settlements were quite advanced. The ancient peoples of the Indus River Valley civilization had advanced use of water: pipes, drains and even indoor bathrooms. They were precise with mathematics, and used this skill to measure weight and mass accurately. But unlike most other civilizations in the 2000s B.C., the ruins of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa do not contain any large palaces or monuments to false gods.

The ancient Indian people survived on agriculture and traded with Mesopotamia, but many of the inhabitants were tradesmen, as artistic artifacts from Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa illustrate.

As mentioned above, the fertile land and geographic protection of the Indus River Valley allowed and facilitated success by early civilizations there. The Sarasvati River, which is named after a Hindu goddess, was the largest in ancient India, flowing west of Delhi and providing water to a fertile region as described in the Rig Veda, which is the most fundamental of the sacred Vedic Hindu texts. (The river has since completely dried up, but was proven to have existed by satellite photographs of India.) Food and commerce in the Indus River Valley was based on barley (yava), copper (ayas) and cattle. By 2600 B.C., the Indus-Sarasvati civilization became the largest civilization in the ancient world, spreading from Pakistan to many areas of India today. It had trade connections with Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, Central Asia and elsewhere. Its population is estimated to have been 100,000, which is far more than most cities in New Jersey today.

By 2000 B.C., the world's population was 27 million, 22% of which lived in India. Interestingly, India still contains a high percentage of the world's population, but not quite as high as back then: today India has 16% or so of the world's population, or about 1 billion people. Three of the world's ten most populated cities today are in India: Bombay (recently renamed as Mumbai), Calcutta and Delhi.

The collapse of the Indus Civilization came about from a mixture of geographic and human forces. Sometime around 2000 B.C., the course of the Indus River shifted away from various centers of civilization. This was compounded in the years up to 1500 B.C. by the hostile incursions of Indo-European (Aryan) nomads invading through the Bolan and Khyber passes in the Hindu Kush mountain range. The Aryans spoke Sanskrit, an Indo-European language. They conquered the Dravidians and forced them southward into what is now India. Religious (Hindu, the adjective for Hinduism) literature describes these struggles in the "Rig Veda" and two long poems known as the "Mahabharata" and the "Ramayana". By 900 B.C. iron smelting was discovered and became useful in making weapons and tools to clear fields and the jungle for agriculture. The Aryans were very successful in cultivating the land along the banks of the Ganges River Valley, aided by forceful winds known as monsoons that brought rain from the Indian Ocean. Rice was the most popular crop, and remains the world's leading crop even today.

By 975 B.C., King Hiram of Phoenicia encouraged trade between India and King Solomon of Israel. In 950 B.C., Jewish people arrived in India in King Solomon's merchant fleet, and later established colonies there. Around the same time, perhaps due to increased trade, Sanskrit began to decline as the spoken language of India. Priestly Sanskrit was later refined between 750 and 250 B.C.

Some of the people in the Indus River Valley likely migrated southeast to what is India today. The Vedic (pronounced VAYD-ik) civilization existed from about 1500 to 500 B.C., and is credited with developing the religion and culture of Hinduism (explained further below). Note that the "classical" civilization of India came later, after this foundation had been laid. Classical India consisted of two major empires: the Mauryan Empire (322-185 B.C.) and the Gupta Empire (A.D. 320-467). Before, during and after these empires there was very little in the way of a central government, and thus, India is best understood by studying its major religion, Hinduism. This is one of the oldest and longest-surviving religions in the history of the world. India is also the origin of two other major religions, Buddhism and Jainism. One of Jesus' Apostles (Thomas) went to India and established a Christian community there that thrives to this day.

=== Classical Indian Civilization ===

The beginning of classical India was when the Achaemenid Persians invaded the Indus Valley region in 572 B.C. Aryans led by Magadha joined together to repel the Persians, but internal religious conflict prevented unity.

Later Alexander the Great invaded this region in 327 B.C., spreading [[Greeks|Greek]] influence. The time Alexander's troops spent in India must have been a strange experience for them. For example, they had never seen elephants. Imagine their surprise when the Indians fought from atop these massive creatures during a battle on the banks of the river. In that same battle, Alexander's favorite horse, Buchephalus, was injured and died. After that, Alexander wanted to continue East, but his troops refused, and he was forced to leave India unconquered. So only India was able to stop Alexander the Great, or at least survive his conquests.

Afterward, in 322 B.C., Chandragupta Mauryan defeated the Greek general Seleucus, who ruled a large part of East Asia which Alexander the Great had conquered. Chandragupta Mauryan became king of Seleucus' land, creating the largest Indian empire in India's history. He built an elaborate capital city at Pataliputra, which surpassed even the splendor of the great Persian cities, and was the largest city in the world at that time, with over 150,000 inhabitants.<ref>http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0038472.html</ref> It was home to several Buddhist monasteries.

Chandragupta Mauryan built a massive army of 500,000 soldiers and his adviser, Kautilya, wrote a book how to maintain political power entitled the "Arthashastra". He wrote that punishment was the key to government. In other words, Chandragupta was a tough dictator. But his name is revered, as many Indians to this day bear the last name of "Chandra" or "Gupta".

Chandragupta's grandson, Ashoka, underwent a religious conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism while he held power (268-232 B.C.). Buddhism emphasizes non-violence and Ashoka's conversion caused him to rule as a benevolent dictator, stressing compassion and even apologizing for his role in killing 150,000 Indians! He displayed tolerance towards all religions and helped erect shrines to Hinduism and Jainism, another religion of India. Ashoka elevated the status of women, who were already highly respected under the Hindu culture. In Buddhism women could become monks. He also promoted trade with the expanding Roman empire to the West, and with the growing Han dynasty in China to the East. But after Ashoka died, the empire fell into civil war, and became vulnerable to outside invaders, such as the Bactrian Greeks in the second century B.C. and the Buddhist Kushan in 100 B.C. A council of Buddhist monks was convened under Kanishka, King of Kushan, to regulate Buddhism, and the result was a new form of Buddhism: Mahayana Buddhism.

The other major Indian empire was the Gupta empire, from A.D. 320 to 467. In A.D. 320 Chandra Gupta I rose to power, who had no connection with the prior ruler Chandragupta Mauryan. Chandra Gupta I conquered the Ganges Valley, and established a new Hindu dynasty. Trade with the rest of the world flourished under his regime, and he had a policy of religious tolerance. Intellectual and economic achievement was high. One famous poet and playwright was Kalidasa, who wrote epic poems and plays that were much more upbeat and happy than the dreary Greek tragedies.

The Indian number system developed, which was later misnamed the "Arabic numerals." The entire world used this system of numbering today: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. A Buddhist monastery at Nalanda established a university that attracted thousands of students. A great Indian doctor named Caraka developed a code of medical ethics, and the practice of medicine flourished. The Indians also developed a form of iron that could withstand rust, and it was used in buildings.

=== Hinduism ===

Hinduism was, and is, one of the most powerful and resilient religions in the history of the world. In the 20th century it withstood communism; throughout history it withstood evangelism by other religions; and in the last millennium it withstood Islam. We shall see whether it continues to survive against Islam in this century.

Hinduism is an ancient polytheistic religion, consisting of multiple gods who were ultimately thought to be part of one god: Brahma, the supreme god of life. The name "Hindu" comes from the word Hindustan, the Persian word for riverland; the birth of Hinduism was the merger of the Upanishadic and Vedic religious traditions in ancient India. Muslim invaders of the A.D. 11th and 13th centuries began using the term "Hindu" to describe Indians from this region who were not Buddhists and who refused to convert to Islam. In the A.D. 16th century European merchants and missionaries started using the term also. But while Hinduism is not limited to one set of clear and specific beliefs, it does represent an overall belief system and today there are nearly one billion adherents to Hinduism in the world, nearly all of whom live in or emigrated from India. (There are also significant Muslim and Christian populations in India today; Mother Theresa won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1980 for her Christian charity work there.)

Hinduism focuses on "The Eternal Way," which means that certain spiritual principles are true for eternity, transcending what is man-made. This is like a science of consciousness. The advancement of knowledge is emphasized by Hinduism, and today many Indians can be found obtaining PhDs or medical degrees. Many Indians (note that the term "Indian" in this lecture refers to South Asia) are entering engineering and similar high-tech professions, and American companies are gradually hiring more and more Indians for these jobs because of the high quality of their work and their willingness to work for less wages by American standards. Politically, Hindus in the United States are more Republican than other immigrant groups.

Hinduism encourages meditation using yoga. Historically, Hindus believed in reincarnation, a belief that spread even to the Greek philosopher Pythagoras in 560 B.C. Visitors to India are impressed or surprised by seeing cows wandering about, disrupting traffic and commerce. The expression "sacred cow" comes from the belief in reincarnation, and the view that a cow may be the reincarnation of one of your ancestors or deceased relatives.

The basic belief of Hinduism is in a cycle of life often represented by a dancing woman in a ring of fire, who is the god "Shiva" representing creation and destruction. Other symbols are the god Brahma representing creation and the god Vishnu representing preservation or continuance of life. In Hindu statutes a flat palm facing the onlooker represents peace, while a drum symbolizes creation.

In 1966, the Supreme Court of India defined what Hinduism is for legal purposes:

1. Belief in the authority of the Vedas (ancient hymns to the gods, written in Sanskrit). The oldest collection of hymns in the Vedas is the Rig Veda, which was written between 1800 and 1300 B.C. The greatest Veda hymn is the "Bhagavad Gita," a section in the Mahabharata concerning life's never-ending spiritual journey towards perfection, to be attained by adhering to a code of conduct. The Bhagavad Gita is a spiritual guide to life's problems, like the parables of Christianity.

2. Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and respect an opponent's view. Hinduism adapts to and incorporates other belief systems.

3. Belief in world rhythms: long periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession.

4. Belief in reincarnation (rebirth) and pre-existence. Your instructor knows a Hindu who says his misfortune must be due to his having sinned in a prior life.

5. Belief that there are many ways to salvation. Many Hindus greatly respect Jesus, for example.

6. Belief that the number of gods to be worshiped may be large, although some Hindus reject the worship of gods altogether.

7. Unlike most other religions, Hinduism is not defined by a specific set of philosophical concepts.

Lacking from this modern legal definition is the caste system set forth in the Code of Manu, whereby the accumulation of a person's good deeds (or evil acts) in his prior lives (his "karma") determine whether he is born into a family at a higher or lower caste level, or even lower as an animal or plant. Upon full compliance with the Hindu moral code, the person is released from the "wheel of life" and attains unity with Brahma (universal all). This belief is known as "Moksha". Obviously the caste system is politically incorrect today, with many Hindus believing in it privately but reluctant to speak about it publicly.

The highest caste is the "Brahmans" (priests and scholars). This term has been incorporated in a non-religious sense into English (spelled as "Brahmins") to mean wealthy, aloof New England families, like the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's family. The traditional goal of Hindus is to reach Brahma, or spiritual perfection, by observing dharma (DER-muh) (moral or religious duties of your caste). Below the Brahmans in the Hindu case system are the Kshatriya (rulers), the Vaishya (peasants), and then the serfs (Shudra). Below the lowest caste level are the "untouchables" or Harijans, who are slaves and outcasts. As noted above, few talk publicly about the caste system any more because it is so politically incorrect.

In Hindu society, a woman was generally treated like a dependent to be taken care of and supervised by her father, husband or brother. Government was by a local prince or "raja", also spelled as "rajah". The English word "raj" means reign.

The omission of the traditional caste system from the Indian Supreme Court's modern definition illustrates how Hinduism adapts to changing times (and political correctness). This remarkable ability to adapt has helped Hinduism survive for thousands of years and become one of the oldest surviving religions. For example, Hinduism survived the threat posed by the rival religion Buddhism simply by treating the founder of Buddhism like another god and adding him to the religion. Hinduism has treated Christianity in a similar manner, by accepting Jesus as "a" God. Today India is 82% Hindu.

Hinduism holds a special reverence for all living creatures, and violence against life is prohibited. Abortion was traditionally rare in India, but some report that it has increased greatly in recent decades as the country is industrialized and influenced by Western atheistic beliefs. The attitude towards women in Hinduism is of special respect in the family structure. Women obeyed their husbands under Hinduism. A much-criticized (but rare) practice in India was for a wife, after her husband's death, to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre to die as a way of honoring him. This is known as "sati" or "suttee" (suh-TEE). Hinduism practices cremation of the deceased.

If you see a physician in American who is of Indian descent you may find the "Oath of the Hindu Physician" hanging on his wall: "... Speak the truth; Not eat met; Care for the good of all living beings; ... Be simply clothed and drink no intoxicant; ... Consider time and place; Always seek to grow in knowledge; ... Never take a present from a woman without her husband's consent; ... What happens in the house [of the patient] must not be mentioned outside ...."

Hinduism has been the backbone of Indian culture for thousands of years. This religion enabled Indians to survive countless invasions, such as by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C. when he conquered most of the Indus valley. Not even Alexander and the Hellenistic influence could change Indian culture much. Hinduism has also withstood both Islam and communism. The Hindu faith is extremely resilient to foreign beliefs, and the survival of Hinduism protected the Indian culture and way of life.

=== Jainism ===

Jainism is a branch of Hinduism that emphasizes the principle of non-violence towards all life. Jainism requires strict vegetarianism, for example. Jainism was founded by Mahavira (540-468 B.C.), who taught self-denial and non-violence against any form of life. Jainism's strict requirements of self-denial caused it to lose popularity, but the religion remained strong and today has over 4 million adherents worldwide (including 7000 in the U.S.). It influenced Gandhi later in India, and Ralph Waldo Emerson in the United States.

Once your instructor was approached for advice by a physician who is an adherent to Jainism, and your instructor first asked if the physician performed abortions because your instructor was not going to help him if he did. But that question reflected a misunderstanding of Jainism by your instructor, because it strictly prohibits abortion and the taking of any life.

Unlike Hinduism, Jainism rejects the authority of the Vedas, the sacred scriptures of Hinduism.

=== Buddhism ===

Siddhartha Gautama was a royal Hindu prince who lived from 563 to 483 B.C. As a young prince he was disturbed by seeing suffering in old people and also sick people. On one occasion, he saw a dead body (a corpse) and was deeply upset by it. As a Hindu, Prince Siddhartha believed in reincarnation but the possibility of repeated suffering in many lives disturbed him further. According to legend, he meditated for a long time under a tree and emerged from it as the "Enlightened One" who founded the new religion of Buddhism. Once he became the Buddha, his followers referred to him as "Buddha Shakyamuni" ("Shakya" is the name of his royal family and "Muni" means "Able One."), or simply "the Buddha" for short. The term "Buddha" today can also apply to any "Awakened One" in the religion of Buddhism.

Although the above paragraph refers to Buddhism as a "religion", that is disputed by many. Buddhism has no "God", and is often described as a "belief system" rather than as a "religion".

Siddhartha declared that happiness is found not by improving one's "karma" under Hinduism, but by embracing Four Noble Truths: (1) suffering is universal, (2) craving or desire causes it, (3) the cure is to eliminate the craving or desire, and (4) following the Eightfold Path helps eliminate this desire in order to attain "nirvana". Nirvana is a release from suffering to attain inner peace and complete contentment. The Eightfold Path is a multifaceted guide to nirvana that relies on wisdom (right view and intention); ethics (right speech, action & livelihood); and mind (right effort, mindfulness & concentration). In other words, the Eightfold Path is a system of meditation that can be followed by anyone at any social or caste level, which makes Buddhism more attractive to the lower class than Hinduism, which calls them untouchables.

Legend states that forty-nine (49) days after the Buddha's enlightenment, he began teaching. He taught the first Wheel of "Dharma" (one's duty or nature) to achieve protection from suffering. The Buddha also taught the Hinayana, or Lesser Vehicle, of Buddhism. Later, the Buddha taught the second and third Wheels of Dharma. Together these teachings became the source of the Mahayana, or Great Vehicle, of Buddhism. The Hinayana teaching describes how to attain freedom from suffering for oneself alone. The Mahayana teaching describes how to attain full enlightenment ("Buddhahood") for the sake of others. The Buddha encouraged everyone to practice Dharma to improve inner peace and happiness, and improve the quality of life. Inner peace is considered under Buddhism to be the key to outward peace.

What is the practice of Buddhism like? Buddhists seek a moral life that emphasizes meditation. The goal of the meditation is to end cravings and desires and attain a release from suffering, or "nirvana". Buddhism encourages increased wisdom and understanding. Buddhists tend not to proselytize aggressively, but fully accept converts. There are Buddhists in most countries today.

Founded in India, Buddhism has grown to become the fourth largest world religion (behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, in that order). A strict version of Buddhism spread in Southeast Asia (e.g., Cambodia and Vietnam). A more liberal (less strict) version spread into China, Japan and Korea. Buddhism has a larger following in the U.S. today than Hinduism, but Hinduism is much stronger than Buddhism in India.

There are many statues of the Buddha, and they vary from country to county to show the Buddha as an inhabitant of the local country. The hand position (mudras) in the statute shows whether the Buddha is teaching, giving a blessing, or meditating.

=== Comparison of Hinduism with Buddhism ===

Buddhism is less moral than Hinduism, which is highly moral and based on castes. Buddhism welcomes all and has an easier time gain converts than Hinduism does.

There are many similarities between the two religions. Buddha himself was a Hindu. Here is a list of what Hinduism and Buddhism have in common:

1. Both religions promote meditation or other forms of spiritual practice.

2. Both religions preach non-violence towards all forms of life.

3. Both religions believe in karma in binding people to this world, and believe in a cycle of births and deaths (reincarnation).

4. Both religions believe in multiple hells and heavens.

5. Both religions emphasize detachment and renunciation of materialism, and treat desire as the major cause of suffering.

But keep in mind the key differences between Buddhism and Hinduism:

1. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of souls or "first cause" (God). For this reason many do not consider Buddhism to be a true religion, but merely a belief system. Hinduism believes that Brahman is the Supreme Creator and that the soul (Atman) does exist.

2. Buddhism views the world as filled with sorrow, and the highest goal of human life is to end sorrow. Hinduism has four major goals for everyone to pursue: religious duty (dharma), wealth (artha), desires (kama) and salvation (moksha).

3. Hinduism believes in four stages in life (ashramas), while Buddhism rejects this.

4. Hinduism is a religion of the individual and thus has no monks. Buddhism has many monks.

5. Hinduism does not have any prophets, while Buddhism reveres Buddha as its founder.

6. Buddhism rejects the sacred scriptures of Hinduism, the Vedas.

The Hindu response to the competition presented by Buddhism was to treat the Buddha as another god of Hinduism (the incarnation of Mahavishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity). This was typical of how Hinduism adapted to other religions to thwart the competitive threats. This enabled Hinduism to remain far more popular than Buddhism within India, but not outside India.

=== India's Contributions ===

What can we thank ancient India for? Our Arabic numerals, which are derived from Hindu numbers. Also, near the end of classical India (around A.D. 500) the game of chess was invented in India. Note that the game of chess does not involve any chance; Hinduism is against gambling. The original game of chess lacked the powerful "queen", and Muslim versions of the game lack the queen to this day.

Vedic mathematics, which is an ancient math system found in the Hindu scriptures, is taught to this day. It emphasizes solving complex math problems orally. India first discovered the concept of "zero" around the sixth century, which was a huge breakthrough.

Indian religion adds a transcendental quality that has found popularity worldwide in the form of meditation, and some American liberals left Christianity for it. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a 19th century Massachusetts writer, was an example: "I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavat-Gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spake to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions that exercise us."

Today, the popularity of the English language in India, its low cost of living, and its intelligent workforce make it an attractive place for large American companies to relocate or "offshore" their jobs. Often when Americans call "customer service" for large companies, they are actually reaching low-cost operators in India, sometimes using Americanized first names.

India is more than a country. It is a subcontinent. It is vast in size: two-fifths the area of all of Europe. 150 different languages are spoken there today. Even though India has traditionally been a poor country, for decades it has produced more food than it can consume.

== Major Belief Systems Today ==

Here is a ranking by the number of followers of the major belief systems in the world today:<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Religion'''
|'''Followers'''
|'''Comment'''
|-
|Christianity
|2.1 billion
|growing fastest in Africa, Asia; losing in Europe
|-
|Islam
|1.5 billion
|threat of death if conversion to another religion
|-
|Anti-religious
|1.1 billion
|followers censor school prayer and promote evolution
|-
|Hinduism
|900 million
|nearly all are in or from India
|-
|Chinese religions
|394 million
|includes Confucianism and Taoism
|-
|Buddhism
|376 million
|mostly in non-Indian parts of Asia
|-
|Judaism
|14 million
|mostly in Israel and the United States
|-
|Jainism
|4.2 million
|originated in India, non-violence towards all life
|-
|Shinto
|4 million
|the official religion of Japan, key in World War II
|-
|Zoroastrianism
|2.6 million
|ancient origins in the Middle East
|-
|Scientology
|500,000
|members include actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta
|}

== China ==
[[Image:China rel01.jpg|450px|right]]
China, like India, is significant partly because it has so many people. Each has a population of about 1 billion persons today, and one third of the entire world now lives in China or India. Most people in the world are Asian, which includes Japan, North and South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, and many other countries.

But there the similarities between China and India end. There is no Hinduism in China. There is very little ethnic diversity in China, in contrast with India and many Western countries today. Christianity has struggled to convert China, and only about one out of nine Chinese are Christian. And even that small number is due to courageous efforts in the face of much persecution of religion by the communist government that rules China.

China has always been isolated by geographic protections. The highest mountains in the world, the Himalayas, separate it from India. The Himalaya Mountain Range is famous for giants like Mount Everest and K2. Vast amounts of semi-desert land known as the Gobi desert separate China from the Middle East and the area which was Mesopotamia in ancient times.

In the south of China, the Yangtze river flows for 3000 miles, navigable from the sea for half of its course. In the north is the Yellow river (now called the Huang He), which runs westward from the Yellow Sea and then northward a bit before turning south (look on the map above). The Yellow river obtained its original name from the murky tan color of its waters. The Yellow River is known for its tendency to flood surrounding lands, often with disastrous results. The silt and sand carried in the muddy water builds up on the bottom of the river until it blocks the water's flow and causes the river to divert its course, flooding into another area. Floods like these make the course of the Yellow River change often.

=== Ancient China ===

The earliest archaeological evidence in China is of the Shang dynasty, 1766-1122 B.C. By folklore it began when the virtuous and wise man named T'ang overthrew the decadent emperor Chieh of the Hsia dynasty. The Shang dynasty was ultimately overthrown and replaced by the Chou dynasty.

The Shang dynasty built cities in northern China, along the eastern banks of the Yellow river. It did not control all of the land that belongs to China today. Sometimes called the Yellow River Civilization, the Shang dynasty benefited from bronze that Mesopotamia had introduced to China around 2000 B.C. Note that Bronze had previously been invented in Mesopotamia around 3000 B.C.

The Shang dynasty had writing in the form of oracle bones: questions and answers inscribed on actual bone. The bones were quite common and were created during the pagan oracles involved in ancient Chinese religion. For archaeologists, these bones were the first concrete evidence that the Shang dynasty really had existed. Before that, it was widely regarded as nothing more than a myth. But if oracle bones were so common, why didn't archaeologists find them sooner? Oracle bones were widely sold as "dragon bones" and believed to have magical healing properties, and the bones were generally ground up and used as medicine. No one realized what the bones were until a high ranking official who was sick noticed that the bone which was to be ground for his medicine was covered in strange glyphs! His discovery proved the existence of the Shang dynasty.

The Shang empire consisted of city-states, with much war between the various cities but particularly against the non-urbanized, agricultural populations in the rural areas. The capital cities shifted as often as power changed hands. The Shang dynasty perfected the wheel and used chariots in warfare.

China used a pictographic form of writing that it continues to utilize to this day, albeit in a more developed form. Often the word looked like its meaning, though today the characters are much more complex.

The Zhou or Chou dynasty replaced the Shang dynasty in 1027 B.C., and benefited from the Iron Age. The Iron Age is the period of human history characterized by the smelting of iron and its use in industry in western Asia and Egypt. The Zhou dynasty lasted longer than any other dynasty in Chinese history, ruling until 221 B.C. This dynasty ruled over the eastern part of China during the last few hundred years of its reign. The multiplication table, which is essential to modern mathematics, was developed during this dynasty.

Early Chinese religion consisted of worshiping a supreme god called "Shang Ti," or "Lord on High." Shang Ti was believed to be a god ruling over the lesser gods of the sun, moon, wind, rain and other aspects of nature. The ancient Chinese people worshiped these gods with human sacrifices. When a king died, for example, hundreds of slaves and prisoners would be sacrificed in his honor. There were also sacrifices on a smaller scale when a temple or palace was constructed.

=== Sun Tzu ===

The first military treatise was written by Sun Tzu in the 6th century B.C., often called in English the "Art of Warfare." It became a classic of military strategy used by generals and even modern businessmen, and is available freely on the internet.<ref>http://suntzusaid.com/</ref>

This classic contained timeless insights including:<ref>http://suntzusaid.com/book/4</ref>

*"The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."

*"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

*"To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence."

The "Art of Warfare" reflects insights shared by the ancient Chinese culture. The last item above about seeing victory, for example, reflects an observation of another ancient Chinese sage named Ts'ao Kung, who remarked that the goal is to recognize a fruitful plant ''before'' it germinates. In order words, success depends on being able to anticipate the future.

=== Confucius ===

The great figure in ancient China was Confucius, who lived from 551 to 478 B.C. and taught social ethics to the people. This was around the same time as the early Greek philosophers. The name Confucius is simply a Latin translation of his real name, Kung Fu-tze, by Western historians. Confucius's disciples wrote down his teachings in a book called the Analects, which focused on man's duties to obey a universal natural law. Moderation in conduct, or "li", was emphasized, and filial piety (respecting the older members of one's family) was the goal of the practices outlined in the Analects. Age itself is greatly honored in Chinese culture, unlike Christianity: the older a person was, the wiser he must be. Confucius taught rulers to be just, and said those being ruled should be loyal to their rulers.

Confucius wrote little himself, but his disciples recorded his teachings in the Analects. This book became a "classic" (widely read and respected text) and has had enormous influence over Chinese history. Confucius emphasized rational analysis with a touch of flexibility. He disavowed any original insight or knowledge, and opposed anything egotistical. He once said, "I for my part am not one of those who have innate knowledge. I am simply one who loves the past and who is diligent in investigating it."

After Confucius died there was an era of the Warring States, from 481-221 B.C. During that time several teachers emerged with their own interpretations of Confucian thought. The two leading ones were Mencius (371-289 B.C.) and Hsun-tzu (298-230 B.C.). Mencius felt that mankind was essentially good and that philosophers like himself should run the country. Hsun Tzu, in contrast, felt that man was intrinsically evil and that a wise and powerful ruler was necessary to maintain order. Hsun Tzu's ideas became powerful, and laid the intellectual groundwork for the brutal Chinese dictatorships that followed the Warring States: the Chi'in or Qin state (221-206 B.C.).

Ch'in was the first unified Chinese empire, and its king was Shih huang-ti. It lasted until the Han dynasty rose to power in 206 B.C. The Han dynasty then lasted 400 years until A.D. 220, and its name is still used to describe the ethnicity of 93% of Chinese today.

We will discuss these important dynasties below. But first, let's examine the prevalent religious beliefs of ancient China.

=== Taoism ===

Taoism (also known as Daoism) eventually caught on in China and Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam) more than other religions, probably due to its compatibility with the philosophical foundations laid by Confucius. Taoism is significantly more philosophical than the world's largest religions of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. The symbol for Taoism (see right) is the Taijitu or "Yin and Yang," in which a curved half of a circle divides a shaded from a clear region to represent a constant interaction in nature between two forces having opposite qualities. [[Image:Yin yang.jpg|right]]

The Yin (darker side) is passive or negative or feminine; the Yang (lighter side) is active or positive or masculine. While western philosophy often views this dualism as a struggle, in China the goal is to harmonize these complementary forces. Taoism and Confucianism strive to obtain harmony, though in Taoism the focus is on nature while in Confucianism the focus is on people.

The basic differences between Confucianism, Taoism and a third philosophy in China called "Legalism" were the following. Confucianism emphasized education, tradition, reference for elders and ancestors, and a strong government. Taoism emphasized harmony with nature, and preferred the least amount of government. Legalism, the forerunner to modern communist China, held that a strong government was essential to control the people.

Buddhism, which was popular in India, emphasizes personal salvation more than the Taoism of China. It makes little difference today in China, where the communist dictators impose atheism as the official belief system. But in ancient China, before communism, these religions competed with each other for followers. Taoism advanced at the expense of Confucianism, which lost followers until northern rulers reestablished the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven was a theory that heaven blessed good rulers but overthrew bad ones, and was first used by the Zhou Dynasty to justify overthrowing the Shang Dynasty. These northern rulers obtained control in A.D. 589 under the Sui and Tang Dynasties.

=== Imperial China ===

The first imperial or national Chinese dynasty was the Qin or Ch'in dynasty (221-206 B.C.), which was founded by the ruler of the Zhou vassal state Qin, Prince Zheng. The Qin dynasty was superb in battle, using chariots and iron weaponry, and that enabled Prince Zheng to conquer all the Chinese states and unify the country. The Qin dynasty built many internal improvements, such as roads, canals and irrigation, using iron and bronze tools. It was the Qin dynasty that began to construct the Great Wall, which stretches today for 1,400 miles. China has always feared and been threatened by foreign invaders, and the wall was a way to defend itself by augmenting the natural protections of geography. It is from "Qin" that the name "China" is derived. But the Qin dynasty's highly legalistic approach to governing eventually led to rebellion.

The Han empire or dynasty (206 B.C. to A.D 220, with only a brief interruption from A.D. 6-23) built on the foundation of the Qin dynasty - literally. The walls and roads were extended and improved during this period. Liu Bang was the first Han ruler, and he imposed a centralized government that was stable for many years. Empress Lu was a woman who seized power from 195 until 180 B.C. and then installed her sons as emperors while they were still infants. Han Wudi (141-87 B.C.) was the longest serving Han ruler. He was known for appointing efficient provincial administrators.

The Han dynasty expanded the territory of China into Vietnam and Korea, and administered justice to the country from a centralized and organized civil service. This was the most significant of all Chinese dynasties, and is compared by historians to the Pax Romana period in the Roman empire (which we will discuss in the next lecture). The Han dynasty valued education highly, and even created a scholar class of people known as "shi". Historians criticize the Han dynasty, however, for treating women in an inferior manner.

The Han dynasty developed the famous Silk Road: 5,000 miles of interconnected roads linking China to the Mediterranean region, which enabled trade in silk and fine goods to greatly increase. Buddhism spread widely along the Silk Road, promoted both by traders and Buddhist monks, and reached China in A.D. 100. Another new religion designed to appeal to merchants, Manichaeism (named after its founder Mani (A.D. 216-272)), also spread to Turkish nomads by teaching self-denial and acceptance of both Buddha and Jesus as prophets. Notice how Buddhism would predictably become more popular outside India than Hinduism did; Buddhism was not based on one's class or family heritage, while Hinduism was.

Trade flourished on the Silk Road, which China used to transport silk, spices gems, wine, cosmetics and even grain to the Mediterranean. By land the traders carrying the goods to all groups in the Middle East; by sea the Malay sailors mastered the tricky monsoon wind patterns. The Silk Road was influential from 150 B.C. to A.D. 900. Perhaps one might compare its enormous influence to the internet today! Today, an important railway runs along a common route which was part of the silk road.

The state philosophy of the Han dynasty was Confucianism. Technology advanced during this time, as did the arts. Paper, porcelain, the compass, the rudder, the seismograph and possibly acupuncture were all invented under the Han dynasty. Detailed historical records were maintained. Most Chinese people were farmers, but China's discovery of iron enabled it to develop some highly profitable manufacturing trade.

The Han dynasty declined, in a manner similar to the decline and fall of the Roman empire, though a bit earlier. Historians cite the same reasons for the decline of both empires: too vast an empire to administer and keep together, invasions by barbarians, hardship caused by the spread of disease and poor harvests, and overall economic failure. In both cases, leaders of the armies gained power as the empires declined, but the generals could not save the empires.

But historians credit both the Han dynasty and the Roman empire for their lasting contributions to the world: roads and, for a while, peace and prosperity. The Han dynasty left us with paper, a greater emphasis on education, and the marvelous Silk Road. The Roman empire left us with a system of laws, a powerful language (Latin), and the spread of Christianity.

But just as the West fell into disorganization once Rome fell, so did China when the Han dynasty collapsed. China was ruled by regional governments known as the Three Kingdoms (A.D. 220-280). Many legends arose during this period, as described in a Chinese literature classic entitled, "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms."

It was not until A.D. 589 that the Sui Dynasty arose to reestablish centralized government. Subsequently the longer Tang and Song Dynasties ruled China also.

=== China's Contributions ===

What inventions and innovations do we owe to ancient China? A great deal: paper, the magnetic compass, the umbrella, the fan, spaghetti, the fixed rudder, acupuncture, bamboo cultivation, harvesting silk, and perhaps the first planetarium. Later, in A.D. 850, China invented gunpowder, which also popularized fireworks.

English philosopher Francis Bacon said this about three Chinese inventions: "Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries."<ref>http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2008-08/26/content_146756_2.htm</ref> Sometimes historians refer to the "Four Great Inventions": paper-making, printing, compass and gunpowder, and claim that China deserves credit for all four.

'''Debate: What were the greatest inventions of the ancient world?'''

== The Rise of Christianity ==

The most significant person in history was Jesus of Nazareth, also recognized as Jesus Christ. Do you know the etymology (word origin) of the name "Jesus"?

In the Greek the name for Jesus is spelled Ἰησοῦν or (pronounced as "ee-ay-sooce"), as in this passage naming Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew:<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=1&v=21&t=KJV#vrsn/21</ref>

:τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ '''Ἰησοῦν''' αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν

which the NIV version of the Bible translates as:<ref>Matt 1:21.</ref>

:She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name '''Jesus''',* because he will save his people from their sins.

The footnote for "Jesus" (*) in the above NIV translation explains, "Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves."

The ancient Greek, Hebrew and Latin all lacked the modern English letter "J". The Hebrew initially spelled Jesus as "Yeshua" and "y'hoshua", using two different spellings because of the tradition against pronouncing "the sacred part of Yahweh's name, so they changed the 'Yah', to 'Yeh'."<ref>http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm</ref>

The ancient world had several founders of great religions, but only one performed miracles: Jesus of Nazareth. His resurrection is the single greatest event in the history of the world. Do we know when it occurred?

We can estimate the date of His crucifixion because we know it was during the reign of Pontius Pilate, who served from A.D. 26 to 36, thereby encompassing the entire period of ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus himself. A Roman historian named Philo described Pilate as inflexible, obstinate and merciless, and Pilate was hated by the Jewish people under his rule. The Gospels describe the savage retaliation by Pilate against Galileans as follows: "Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices."<ref>Luke 13:1 (NAS).</ref> The Romans later removed Pilate from power for being too cruel!

A detailed analysis of the Gospel and historical sources places the date of the Crucifixion at Friday, April 3, A.D. 33, although some historians think it occurred in A.D. 29.<ref>http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/69weeks/weeks4.html</ref>

From these dates come the traditional view that Jesus was 33 years old when He rose from the dead. However, the Gospels do not specify His age and it is not entirely clear precisely when Jesus was born. We do know from the Gospels that He was less than 50. Many historians place his birth between 6 and 4 B.C. The description of Jesus' birth in the Gospel of Luke refers to King Herod, whose brutal reign was from 37 to 4 B.C.

'''Modern controversy:''' Jesus's hometown of Nazareth is now mostly Muslim, and a modern controversy exists about plans to build a mosque adjacent to the place where the angel Gabriel greeted the Virgin Mary. Muslims honor Mary in the Koran.

An error occurred in the dating of our calendar from Christ's birth by a monk in the sixth century A.D., when the Roman monk Dionysis the Little changed the calendar to recognize the birth of Christ. He calculated that Jesus was born the year that King Herod died, and modern historians agree. However, the monk thought that Herod died 753 years after the founding of Rome, instead of the correct 749 years after the founding of Rome. (King Herod is the ruler who ordered all babies in Bethlehem younger than 2 to be killed in his unsuccessful attempt to murder Jesus, whose family fled to Egypt to escape this.) Thus the monk estimated that Jesus was born four years later than He probably was. What was intended to be A.D. 1 was actually 4 B.C. Note that there is no year "0", as the concept of "0" was unknown to the Greeks and not even discovered until the seventh century by mathematicians in India. The year that followed 1 B.C. is A.D. 1.

The teachings of Jesus were recorded in the Gospels (the word is from Middle English "god" and "spel" for "news", or "Good News") by three of His Apostles (Matthew, John and also Mark, a scribe for Peter) and by a physician (Luke). The oldest known versions of the Gospels are in Greek, the common ''lingua franca'' (common or commercial language among diverse peoples) of the Roman Orient. No original Gospels have been found in Aramaic; the only discovered Aramaic Gospels are translations from Greek versions. The general consensus is that the Gospel according to Matthew was written particularly for Jews; the Gospel according to Mark was written particularly for Romans; the Gospel according to Luke was written particularly for Greeks; and the Gospel according to John was written for everyone. Matthew and John were part of Jesus's original Apostles, and Mark is thought to have been a scribe for the Apostle Peter. Jesus had emphasized that scribes were part of those He sent forth to proselytize the world. "I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes ...."<ref>Matt 23:34 (NAS).</ref>

Luke was a Greek physician (see Col 4:14) who accompanied Paul and also wrote the Acts of the Apostles describing the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the firsthand Gospels of Matthew and John, the Gospel of Luke records eyewitness accounts of others, much as a doctor asks a patient for his medical history and then writes it down in the medical file. Due to Luke's professionalism, his Gospel is comprehensive about Jesus's life and resurrection, and conveys the great sense of joy that Christians felt. In the Battle of the Bulge in World War II (the surprise Nazi counterattack in Dec. 1944), which was one of the worst military defeats in American history, a minister's son who had memorized Luke's description of the Nativity recited it for his fellow soldiers on Christmas Eve while together in the trenches. Many of the American soldiers died in battle soon afterward.

The greatest writing in the history of the world is the Gospel of John, the teenager whom Jesus loved like a son. John revised and perfected this Gospel for many decades before releasing it to others. As was typical for many of the greatest authors, such as Copernicus, John's work was probably not released to the public until he passed away. Isaac Newton also delayed publication of his great mathematical discoveries for decades. As long as something can be improved further, there is no reason to publish it prematurely and confuse the public with multiple versions.

American soldiers in World Wars I and II would carry copies of the Gospel of John with them as they journeyed to faraway battles. This single book has done more to shape human thought and behavior than any other work. America's First Amendment right of free speech is based on ministers preaching of the "Word" of God as described at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem confirm, to the dismay of skeptics, many references in the Gospels about Jesus's work. The Pool of Bethesda has been discovered (John 5:1f). The Pavement has been found (John 19:13). The setting of Jacob's well has been discovered (John 4). Because Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, it would have been impossible for a writer after A.D. 70 to make up any of these details.

Paul of Taurus (now southern Turkey) was Jewish and converted to Christianity within a year or two of the Crucifixion while on the road to Damascus (now located in Syria), and afterward spread the Good News far and wide within the Roman empire. He was both a prolific writer and scholar, and a prodigious missionary who traveled on three great missions throughout the Roman empire before being executed by a beheading in Rome in A.D. 62 (as a Roman citizen, Paul could not be scourged or crucified). Several of Paul's letters are included in the New Testament, and often quoted to this day. (For example, in Paul's letter to the Romans, he condemns homosexuality.<ref>Romans 1:27.</ref>) Peter, who was not a Roman citizen, likewise spread the faith before being crucified in Rome, by his choice upside down out of the utmost respect to Jesus's own Crucifixion.

Many misconceptions about early Christians persist. Americans are often taught that all the disciples were ignorant fishermen who could not read or write. This is plainly false, as several communicated by letter while held in jail by Roman authorities. Many of the insights and truths revealed in the Gospels by the Apostles could only have been understood and taught by people of tremendous intelligence and faith.

Christianity was taken by the early Christians as far and wide as possible. The religious celebrations consisted of a communal meal, called "communion" today but given the Greek name for "love feat" then: "agape". This reenacted the Last Supper of Christ as described in the Gospels. The concept of Christian love has had a profound, positive impact on the world.

Mark founded a church in Egypt under the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, first converting Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus and also converting many native Egyptians who were neither Greek nor Jewish. It was for Theophilus and the Egyptian community that Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, addressing Theophilus in the beginning of each.<ref>''See'' Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1.</ref> The local language in Egypt was Coptic, and translations of the Gospels into that language have been discovered which date from the first half of the second century. Coptic Christianity remains in Egypt now, although Islam has become the most popular religion there. Some cite the acceptance of Arabic as a liturgical language by the Pope of Alexandria as aiding the rise to dominance of Islam there. Coptic Christians celebrate Christmas each year on January 7th.

The Apostle Thomas, known as the "Doubting Thomas" traveled as far as India and established a Christian community that continues to thrive now, although the country is still majority Hindu.

Christianity differs from other major religions in its peaceful evangelism, spreading its truths through freedom of speech. Christianity is unlike non-evangelical religions, such as Judaism and Hinduism, and Christianity also differs from Islam in the manner in which force is used.

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 03}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-30T19:51:51Z

Mikek: /* Stylistic matter */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

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

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

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

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

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

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

== Obama's Atheism ==

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

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

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

== Obama Arab-American ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Small comments ==

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

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

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

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

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

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

== Low Res Pic ==

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

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

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

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

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

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

== Why no family section? ==

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

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

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

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

== Some Changes ==

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

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

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Athtard

2009-01-16T17:17:38Z

Mikek:

== Not the best source to be using ==

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=athtard

Probably not the best site to be referencing, given the rather large number of articles it contains designed to insult Christians, maybe another site could be found?--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:32, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:Agree. Reference has been removed. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:31, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::Should it be listed as a dictionary word then, since if you do a google search, Urban Dictionary seems to be the only place that knows that it exists?[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:17, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-01-15T19:53:09Z

Mikek: /* Election margin */

{{protect|TK}}
== 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)

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-01-15T18:41:25Z

Mikek: /* Election margin */

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-01-15T18:39:41Z

Mikek: /* Presidency (1981-1989) */ Fact tag, see talk

{{President
|image=Aaag.jpg
|seq=40
|term_start=January 20, 1981
|term_end=January 20, 1989<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=George H. W. Bush
|previous=Jimmy Carter
|next=George H. W. Bush
|birth_date=February 6, 1911
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA
|death_date=June 5, 2004
|death_place=Bel Air, California
|spouse=Jane Wyman
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=Presbyterian
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), [[United States]] President and considered by some to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] serving two terms from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. His signature phrase was "trust, but verify," which he used nearly every time be dealt with the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]

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

==Early Life==
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of [[athletics]] and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during [[World War II]], but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of War Bonds.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref>

Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the [[Screen Actors Guild]]. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement." Reagan met his second wife, actress [[Nancy Davis]], when she came to Reagan for help as she was concerned because another actress with the same name ended up on the "black list."<ref> [http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F70F1FF9395C17728DDDAF0A94D8415B8084F1D3 The Biggest Role of Nancy's Life]</ref><ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref>

==Governor of California==
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:

*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

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

*Opposed the Dos Rios Dam.

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged [[Gerald Ford]] for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with George Herbert Walker Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election he received 50.75% of the popular vote, beating Jimmy Carter by almost 10%, and also won 90.9% of the electoral vote. Riding his strong showing, the Republicans won enough seats in the United States Senate to take control of that chamber for the first time in decades. The results were a shock as polling had been showing a close contest heading into the day of the election.

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

In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%.{{fact}} During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Margaret Thatcher]] and some assistance from [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the [[Warsaw Pact]]".</ref>

March 30, 1981 there was an unsuccessful assassination attempt on President Reagan at the Washington Hilton Hotel in [[Washington, D.C.]] John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan and injured 3 others. Reagan survived and was able to recover quickly.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]] As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "Reaganomics." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Ronald Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, President Reagan nominated Superior Court judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the retiring [[Potter Stewart]]. There were some concerns by social conservatives and Pro-Life groups over whether she would overturn [[Roe v. Wade]]. Nevertheless, she was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated [[Washington]] circuit judge, former Solicitor General and former acting [[Attorney General]] [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. [[Senate]] [[Liberal]]s attacked Bork as being too [[conservative]]. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] (D-[[Massachusetts]]), criticized him, saying,

''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

Kennedy had voted for Bork's appointment to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just a few years before.

On October 23, 1987, the U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. [[Anthony Kennedy]] was then nominated for the seat, where he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on [[drugs]]", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in [[television]] advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use went from thirty-three percent of high-school seniors in 1980 to twelve percent in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==
Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars was spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, technologies were developed from the program that had practical uses in society. For instance lasik eye surgery came about through developments generated by the SDI program.

While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians believe that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

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

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>

By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy{{fact}}. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

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

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

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

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

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

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

*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a regenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity. He died at his Bel-Air home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history.

==Family==
Reagan married actress Jane Wyman in 1940 and together they had three children: [[Maureen Reagan]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Christine Reagan]]. Christine was prematurate and died in infancy. Maureen has passed away from cancer and Michael is a famous conservative talk show host. Reagan's marriage to Jane ended in divorce in 1948. In 1952 he married Nancy Davis his wife until the time of his death. Together they had two children, [[Patti Davis]] and [[Ron Reagan Jr]] both of whom are still living.

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an [[AFL-CIO]] union ever elected US President.
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref>
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref>
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had [[Alzheimer's disease|Alzheimer's Disease]] brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans].
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan was known affectionately to some as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>

== Quotes ==
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[founding fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993

==See also==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Garthoff, Raymond. ''Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet relations from Nixon to Reagan'' (1994), by liberal
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America
====notes====
<references/>

==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' 1981.
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. 1981. Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.

====Primary sources by Reagan aides====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stcokman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary
===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by [[Alfred Regnery]]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Ronald Reagan]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2009-01-15T18:38:02Z

Mikek: /* Election margin */ new section

Sidney Crosby

2009-01-12T18:07:24Z

Mikek: Calder Cup is the AHL championship

[[Image:SidneyCrosby.jpg|right|thumb|Game shot of Sidney Crosby]]
'''Sidney Crosby''' is the captain and first-line center of the [[Pittsburgh Penguins]] NHL franchise. He was born August 7, 1987 in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was one of the most sought-after draft picks in NHL history when he entered into the draft in 2005.

==Early Career==
Crosby began his rise to fame at the age of 14 when he played for a AAA hockey team in his hometown of Halifax. Playing against athletes three years his senior, he put up 194 points in 74 games.

Crosby then hoped to play in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL), though was not permitted. He then decided to play for an American high school, Shattuck-St. Mary's prep school in Minnesota. He set new scoring records, putting up 162 points in just 57 games.

==Junior Hockey==
After his impressive career at Shattuck-St. Mary's, Crosby was drafted first overall by the Rimouski Oceanic of the QMJHL. In the 2003-2004 season, Crosby scored scored 54 goals and 89 assists, for a total of 135 points in 59 games. He was invited to play for the Canadian Junior Hockey team and became the youngest player to ever score a goal in the World Junior Championship.

Crosby put up similar numbers during the 2004-2005 season, and quickly rose to be the top prospect in the world.

==NHL Career==
Sidney Crosby was drafted by the [[Pittsburgh Penguins]] in July of 2005. During his rookie season, he scored 102 points, coming in second place for the Calder Memorial Trophy (NHL equivalent of Rookie of the Year) to [[Alexander Ovechkin]].

In the 2007-2008 season, Crosby (as captain) led his team to the Stanley Cup Finals. The Penguins lost the series 4-2. He and [[Evgeni Malkin]], a fellow teammate, are currently the most potent scorers in the [[NHL]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.sidneycrosbyfans.info/biography/ Sidney Crosby Biography]
*[http://sidneycrosbyfan.tripod.com/ Sidney Crosby Fan Club]
[[Category:Canadians]]
[[Category:NHL Players]]

Al Franken

2009-01-07T17:23:42Z

Mikek: Undo revision 604562 by Mv117 (Talk) It was right the first time

[[Image:Frank en Minnesota.jpg|right|thumb|Al Franken, while campaigning in Minnesota]]
'''Al Franken''' is a radical [[liberal]] satirist, comedian, and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken has worked as a comedy writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and was the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''Stuart Saves His Family''.

Franken is known for his anti-[[conservative|conservative]] views (he has called them "nasty, hateful people" <ref>[http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/doasisay/quiz.pdf Random House.com]</ref>) and his coarse humor. He once quipped to the Harvard Crimson, "I dislike homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed." <ref>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past/</ref><ref>http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/01/al-franken-jokes-about-murder-of-gay.html</ref><ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149</ref> In his book ''Lying Liars'', Franken wrote that a "Methodist minister had had his head up his %#@" in a dispute about the Bible<ref>"Do you know what God’s punishment is for liars?" [the minister] asked me ... "God’s punishment for liars is that they believe their own lies." The minister was referring to 2 Thess 2:10-12 which says substantially that. Franken acknowledged his mistake in the paperback version</ref>

At one point his radio show was going to be called "The Liberal Show,"<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/magazine/21FRANKEN.html?pagewanted=8&ei=5007&en=5c47bbc5c11b11f2&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND ''Al Franken, Seriously''] [[New York Times]] Magazine</ref> but upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity<ref>[http://www.kgw.com/business/stories/kgw_033004_biz_progressive_radio.d7edf1d8.html Al Franken's liberal radio network comes to Portland.</ref> When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."

Franken ran for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in as a [[Democrat]] during the 2008 election. Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and coarse style led to questions about whether or not he alienated himself from the important undecided swing voters<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref><ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/06/frankens-senate-race-haunted-by-1995-rape-joke-on-snl-set/ Franken’s Senate Race Haunted by 1995 Rape Joke on ‘SNL’ Set]</ref>. Franken was also called under fire for an interview he did in Playboy magazine that was considered by many to be unbecoming for a senatorial candidate<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1</ref> Many claimed that the article hurt him in his Congressional run.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Washington_Post_franken/2008/06/18/105702.html</ref> The election was very close, with incumbent Norm Coleman leading by less than 300 votes. According to Minnesota state law, a statewide recount would automatically commence. Coleman and his supporters called on Franken to halt the recount and concede, but Franken refused to do so. Some believe his refusal to concede was due to ACORN and others working on his behalf to manipulate the vote count in his favor. <ref>http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/18048/</ref> Indeed, the respected [[Wall Street Journal]] has noted that the count kept changing before the recount, and only in Franken's favor. Looking at what is happening in the vote tallying from a mathematical perspective, they find that it is an extreme statistical improbability.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_stealing_election/2008/11/12/150391.html?s=al&promo_code=711A-1</ref> Further multiple examples were given where the board overseeing the recount blantly applied different standards for Franken and Coleman, choosing to award Franken votes where similar circumstances for Coleman were denied.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html</ref>

On Monday, January 5, 2009, the Minnesota board declared Franken the winner of the Senate race by a razor-thin 225 votes. However, due to the controversy over the recount and the extreme closeness of the race, Republican Norm Coleman's lawyer is set to file a lawsuit, preventing Franken from actually taking office. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090105/ap_on_el_se/minnesota_senate</ref>

==Controversial Statements==
On Franken's website there is the admonition ''"Anybody who deliberately propagandizes with lies should be held up to scorn and ridicule"''<ref>http://lyingliar.com/index.htm</ref>. Throughout his books he has held himself to "impossibly high standards" to tell the truth about those he has written about. Author Alan Skorski researched two of Franken's books (''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' and ''Lies and and the Lying Liars who Tell Them'') and found an extensive pattern of lies, misstatements, factual inaccuracies, among them:
*Accusing Ann Coulter of "lying with footnotes" by "citing a source and misrepresenting what it says"; throughout his book Skorski states that Franken has done exactly that on numerous occasions (Skorski, pg. xiii)
*Accusing President George W. Bush of treason
*The collision between Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage and news reporter Helen Thomas, which Franken had claimed broke both her hip and jaw (''Lying Liars'', pg 218), but which Thomas herself said never happened (Skorski, pg 208). After this came to light, Franken later added a footnote in the paperback version of the book saying, "The Helen Thomas thing is a joke."<ref>Franken, ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'', page 227 of the paperback</ref>
*Franken stated he is "often compared to Rush Limbaugh" when on the air, despite the fact that by the time he left his Air America show to run for the U.S. Senate, his radio network was reduced to just over 40 market stations as a result of severely-low ratings and ultimately bankruptcy. Limbaugh, by comparison, plays on more than 600 stations with an average daily listening audience of 22 million (Skorski, pg 303).
*Franken claimed on his radio show (June 1, 2005) that Rush Limbaugh made up a quotation supposedly said by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which claimed Ginsburg said "replacing 'Mother's Day' and 'Father's Day' with a 'Parent's Day' should be considered...". Skorski did a Google check on Ginsburg and discovered a May 20, 2005 column from the ''National Review'' titled "Bench Warmers, Putting Judicial Nominees in Perspective, Part III"; this column cited a September, 1974 article written by Ginsburg which advocated for the creation of a "Parent's Day" to replace both Mother's and Father's Days.
*Franken claimed John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was lying when took a pro-CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) position on PBS's ''Lehrer Report'' (July 27, 2005) stating "we've seen unemployment fall to 5.0 percent today, which is lower than it's been in decades." <ref>http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm</ref>. Skorski demonstrated that Franken took the unemployment figures under the Clinton Administration by the month (rather than by the year as the Bureau of Labor Statistics does) and willfully distorted them to make it appear that it was Murphy who was lying (Skorski, pg. 77-78).

== Tax Issues ==

During his [[Senate]] campaign in 2008, it was discovered that Al Franken had not paid [[taxes]] in 17 states he earned money over the last four years. Franken blamed it on his accountant saying "This all really comes from one mistake, which is him not understanding that I was supposed to pay state taxes in these other states." Franken says he will pay those states now, plus interest and penalties for a total of $70,000. <ref>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/01/accountants/ Accountants: Franken's tax problems should have been caught] Minnesota Public Radio, May 2, 2008</ref>

== Playboy Article ==

In 2000, Al Franken's comments appeared in Playboy Magazine article titled "[[Porn]]-O-Rama!" He was quoted as saying that the [[internet]] is a great tool for learning and that his 12 year old son was able to do a report on bestiality for a sixth-grade assignment, though the statement was rather tongue in cheek.

== Books by Franken ==
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!'' (Dell Books, 1992) (in character as Stuart Smalley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' (Delacorte Press, 1996) (a satirical book of personal attacks on [[Rush Limbaugh]] as well as other conservatives.)
*''Why Not Me?'' (Delacorte Press, 1999) (a parody-journal kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''Oh, the Things I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness'' (Plume Books, 2003)
*''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them|Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right]]'' (Dutton Books, 2003) (targets conservative commentators and the media, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]] as well as Fox News)
*''The Truth (with jokes)'' (Dutton Books, 2005) (Franken's view on how [[George W. Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy")

==References==
*Skorski, Alan. ''Pants On Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives,'' Cumberland House Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee (2005)
*[http://www.frankenlies.com/ Website devoted to exposing Franken's lies from his two books, ''The Truth'' and ''Lies and the Lying Liars'']
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0291253/ Al Franken] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142525 Al Franken] at National Public Radio
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0] Al Franken engaging in highly unbecoming behavior
{{Liberalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Adoption

2008-12-31T18:29:54Z

Mikek: /* See Also */

'''Adoption''' is the legal transfer of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood of a child from its biological parents to another responsible adult (or adults) who then assumes the role of mother and/or father.

In 1990, the [[U.S. Department of State]] issued almost 7,100 visas for foreign orphans adopted by Americans.<ref>National Catholic Register B1 (Mar. 4-10, 2007) </ref> By 2006, this number had increased to 20,679 visas for such orphans.

In 2002, 22,291 babies were adopted in the United States.<ref>Data from the National Council for Adoption</ref>

In the United States there are well over 100,000 children under the age of sixteen waiting to be adopted, though this number has dropped in recent years.<ref>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm</ref>

Adoption rates in some states have been reduced as a consequence of the legalization and promotion of [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html</ref>

More than one-third of Americans have seriously considered adopting, but no more than 2% have followed through.<ref>Christian Examiner, November 2007, Vol. 25, No. 11, Page 1</ref>

== See Also ==

* [[Foster Care]]
* [[Adoption success stories|Adoption Success Stories]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Right to Life Movement]]

Public schools in the United States

2008-12-31T15:55:39Z

Mikek: Clinton graduated in 1964

[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principle then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref>

Public schools in America have these characteristics:

*30% fail to graduate<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref>
*Nearly 70% are unqualified to go onto college<ref name="graduate"/>
*77% do illegal drugs, and fatal overdoses are common but underreported; public schools are required to present drug "education" to kids<ref>"In 1991, 62 percent [of 8th through 12th graders] had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent."[http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002] Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref>
*More than 35% watch more than 3 hours of television a day<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*About 10% of the girls become pregnant in a typical school; about half have [[abortion]]s, and about half give birth; public schools "educate" kids about sex<ref>"There is zero shame" to teenage pregnancy at public school, the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally<ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% become addicted to cigarettes<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Nearly 10% have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a pro-homosexual student club

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

== History and Terminology ==

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and [[kindergarten]] did not exist until it was created in St. Louis in 1873.

In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others.
== Student Prayer in Public Schools ==

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

== Public schools and declining literacy ==
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

==Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ==
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.
==Effect of liberal mindset on textbooks==
Textbooks (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal]] bias exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—marriage, religion, politics, and business. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread secular and liberal mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

==Pre-1962 Graduates ==
Given that [[public schools]] educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962. Nearly all the examples of prominent Americans who attended public school predate 1962 in their attendance:

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

==Post-1962 Graduates==
Celebrities, Businessmen, Astronauts, Nobel Laureates, Medal of Honor Recipients, and Candidates who attended public school after prayer was banned in 1962 include:

*Pat Tillman, NFL football player and US Army soldier graduated from Leland High School CA <ref>http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=197041</ref>
*Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, attended Miami Palmetto Senior High School FL.<ref>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1
</ref>
*Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo.com, graduated from Sierramont Middle School, and Piedmont Hills High School, CA. <ref>http://goldsea.com/Innovators/Yangjerry/yangjerry3.html</ref>
*David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo.com graduated from Sam Houston High School TX. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/301/000123929/</ref>
*Kathryn D. Sullivan, NASA astronaut and first American woman to walk in space, graduated from Taft High School, Woodland Hills, California, in 1969. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/sullivan-kd.html</ref>
*S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant, graduated from Marian High School, Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1966. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcauliffe.html
</ref>
*Mae C. Jemison, NASA astronaut and first African-America woman in space, graduated from Morgan Park High School, Chicago, Illinois, in 1973. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/jemison-mc.html
</ref>
*Ellen Ochoa, NASA astronaut and the first Hispanic-American woman astronaut, graduated from Grossmont High School, La Mesa, California, in 1975. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ochoa.html</ref>
*Jeana Yeager, aviator, graduated from Commerce High School GA in 1970.<ref>http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/mrp/pdf/today/12-07-05.pdf
</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981. <ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*John Sununu, Senator, graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's. <ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html
</ref>
*[[John Edwards]], politician, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*Spike Lee, producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Bill Gates]], founder of Microsoft, ''left'' public school after attending in Seattle until the age of twelve.<ref>http://www.thocp.net/biographies/gates_bill.htm</ref>
*[[Rush Limbaugh]] graduated from Central High School, MO in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State University for two semesters <ref>http://www.phillytalkradio.com/shows/show.php?show_id=limb</ref>
*Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, attended Martin Van Buren High School, Queens, NY, during the late 1960's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000140300/</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart, U.S. Army, Battle of Mogadishu hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Big Spring High School in Newville, PA in 1976. <ref> http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/shughart.html\</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, U.S. Army, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Tampa Bay Vocational Technical High School, FL in 1988. <ref>http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/profile/index.html</ref>
*Cpl. Jason Dunham, U.S. Marines, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Scio High School NY, in 2002.<ref> http://copthetruth.typepad.com/cop_the_truth/2007/03/uss_jason_dunha.html</ref>
*Lt. Michael Murphy, Navy SEAL, Afghanistan War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. <ref> http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/Schools/HS/articles/0708/murphy/index.html</ref>
*Laura Bush attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964).{{fact}}
*John Cromwell Mather, Nobel laureate, graduated from Newton High School, Newton, NJ in 1964. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000137504/</ref>
*George Fitzgerald Smoot, Nobel laureate, graduated from Upper Arlington High School, Upper Arlington, OH in 1962. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000137510/</ref>
*Hugh David Politzer, Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1966. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/716/000140296/</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]

[[category:education]]
[[category:United States History]]

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2008-12-29T16:00:47Z

Mikek: /* אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ */ new section

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Well, fine, but few or none of those examples would rank as the greatest "works" in history. And as to BRichtigen's comment above, the issue of the "most influential person" is obviously very different from the issue of the "greatest works."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Could you give a few examples of the greatest works in history, preferably done by teenagers? Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Unique and useful project ==

Whatever the claims of your distractors and critics be, I believe it is a great project and quite suitable to the intended audience of the encyclopedia. You are quite right in spotting that the meaning of words change as the language evolves or change. This is especially true for English which has become the universal language and the de facto official language of the internet.I wonder whether any one has done this before. It may also be beneficial to recruit some one with special expertise in this field. --[[User:MRain|MRain]] 12:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this (or anyone who has "special expertise" in the devolution of modern English). We welcome contributions to the project ... starting with yourself! I'll be adding new items as I discover them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: I think that this is an interesting project, and a good opportunity to try and get across some of the wordplay in the original language that the KJV and most other translations just lack; things like Gen 15:2 or Num 21:9 to give a couple of simple examples - also there's very often the case when words are conflated - like the "kill" example - it's good you want to distinguish the more murderous הרג from נכה- there are a number of separate roots that get translated inconsistently as "kill" and "slay", but you'll perhaps want also to distinguish הרג from רצח and נכה from שחט? Also the names are often clumsily translated as footnotes, if at all, rather than elegantly worked in - sometimes the transliteration of a name is inferior to its translation (IMHO, naturally). Added to that, the KJV (which is very bad in this respect) is incredibly inaccurate when it comes to plants and animals, and it'd be nice to see a scholarly yet poetic translation that is sensibly consistent. I look forward to seeing the results of this! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for your insights, Denise, and I look forward to your contributions to this project!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sadly I'm rather busy these days (and my Greek is not much good compared to my Hebrew, and my Aramaic is near non-existent), but I'll try and make some helpful suggestions. Do you mind if I add my twopennyworth to the project page, as far as examples of things I'd like to see included or avoided? I'm not necessarily always able to talk with reference to the KJV, and my interests (as you'll have gathered) are linguistic, aesthetic, and exactitude-focused rather than centred around political considerations. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Divine Right==

Sorry if I offended with the Divine Right translation. My intent was to say that only Christ has the ultimate authority to rule, not to suggest that claims of Divine Right by kings and despots had and validity. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Bearing arms ==

The text reads: "In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of civilisation."

First, I corrected the British spelling in compliance with the MoS. Second, this description of the culture of arms is against the evidence, at least as far as the Greeks. In "History of the Peloponnesian War," Thucydides [http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html spoke] of wearing arms as a custom of the barbarians, and waxes poetic about the lack of necessity of bearing arms in Greece:
{{cquote|And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life.}}

Should I correct it?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:The Greeks believed in false Gods. Surely the correctness of Judaeo-Christian beliefs is obvious? Also, your reference to 'improper' spellings is unnecessary. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::You know I agree with you on that first point Bugler, but I don't think their being pagans affects their beliefs towards weapons. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean "improper" in the pejorative: it's just that the Manual of Style says not to use British spellings.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::Alex, I'm not that hung up about the spellings so if you wish to copy-edit go ahead. As for the other thing, how about 'hallmark of Judaeo-Christian civilization'? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Good idea! I'll change it, thanks Bugler. Good to see you again.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Kill vs Murder ==

One of the differences cites Ex. 20:13 and the clarification is to use "murder" instead of "kill". I agree with this clarification. I use the KJV with explanatory notes from the LDS church and the reference for Ex. 20:13 for the word "kill" says in an alternate translation from the Hebrew it means "murder". --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Rich ==

The entry is blatantly false. You have to look it up. You cant take someone's word for it. Just because it sounds interesting does not make it true. see [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4145&t=KJV here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Your link does not explain the meaning of the Greek term, but only its view of the Biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:05, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::What about [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145 this] and [http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=114459&category=REF this] and [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4145&version=kjv this]? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::The problem here is that the statement is being assumed true, even though there is no reason to believe that it is, aside from the claim of one user who has agreed to the removal of the item. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:21, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::: The underlying insight is promising, given the very different nature of the "rich" then compared to now. Improvement rather than [[censorship]] is the better approach here. My research reveals that the Greek term really means "fully supplied,"[http://time2changechurches.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html] as in being pampered or lazy.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Your source is a blog. I gave 4 separate sources that are greek lexicons. Which do you think is more reliable? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::a footnote to the CP commandments says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Also, Aschlafly, while I share your concern with CPAdmin1's edits, I have to point out that he's right, it's not censorship to remove information because you think it's incorrect. Censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Even if he's wrong, it's assuming bad faith to call his deletions censorship.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Someone please provide a linguistic source that backs up the claim, or I will remove it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:50, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Having checked in my Liddell & Scott, I think it's safe to remove it pending a scholarly source that supports the variant reading. This is a wiki, we can always put it back if more research turns up such a reference. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Not so fast, folks. There is a key insight here that I've just learned from, as have others. The term "rich" DOES change in meaning over time, and the Greek term could not possibly mean what is meant today by "rich". Instead, the Greek term means "fully supplied." Perhaps "idle rich" would be a better translation or, in modern terms, the "complacent" or "lazy miser."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::The experts say that it means rich. Do you know better than the experts? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I still don't quite see how your reading squares with the Joseph of Arimathea citation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Tim, that is such a liberal argument: "the experts say that it means ...." The "experts" also say that [[global warming]] is a crisis and that more government spending is needed. God gave us all the ability to think for ourselves. Let's use it. Denise, I don't know what you're referencing specifically. If you mean a reference that Joseph of Arimathea was "rich" and yet a follower of Jesus, that would not disprove the translation of "idle rich" or "complacent" or "lazy miser." Indeed, Joseph had the time to intervene as needed.
::::::::::::::What? It is a liberal argument to say that people who have spent their life studying a language know that language better than someone who does can not even speak it. That argument sounds good to me. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of biblical greek than the people who have written those lexicons? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 21:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Everyone today is "rich" by the standards of Jesus' time, so presumably the term is more nuanced than that common term.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Since when is consulting people who have dedicated themselves to studying a subject and trusting them over the layman liberal? That is equivalent to me, having no ability in building anything whatsoever, designing and constructing my house myself as opposed to hiring people who make their living doing that because getting their help is liberal. Your definition of liberal is a bit silly Andy, and seems to fall along the lines of "whoever does not wholly agree with what you, Andy Schalfly, believe. If trusting experts makes somebody a liberal, then I'd rather be a liberal than blindly rush into something as major as translating God's Word passed down to mankind without somebody who knows what they are talking about.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:15, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Folks, blindly follow your chosen "experts" somewhere else. This is a wiki devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Understand? That means opening your mind and actually using it. Parroting what you perceive to be an "expert" view might help you win the favor of some liberals, but our project is at a higher level than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:35, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal. In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything. Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's? Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"? Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge? If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge. A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy. That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on. Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is? If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd. Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this. Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd. The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present. Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary. Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

(moved discussion here below to "Rich" Issue for easier editing and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST))

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such." Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals. The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one. In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.

:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]]. Most experts say that government should raise taxes. Most experts say that government should increase spending. In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them. Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::: But those are experts in other fields. These are experts IN THE LANGUAGE. This is less being open-minded, and has now been degraded to Ostrich theory. What does the meaning of ONE WORD have to do with what Dr. John Q. Scientist has to say about [[global warming]]? You are basically saying "disregard all science, all research, all facts, make junk up as you go along."[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 23:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] . Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy. The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation. A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: "plousios" means "abundantly supplied," not "rich". "Rich in mercy" is an awkward translation at best. The context must be considered to find the right English word for "abundantly supplied."

: Your comment on "unicorn" was silly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: I'm happy with "abundantly supplied" as a translation in this case, though it seems a little prolix. Perhaps we could work on a more mellifluous alternative - possibly "over-replete" or something of that ilk, maybe even something with a nuance of luxury rather than mere adequacy. As a side question, does the "abundantly supplied" gloss apply to `ashir as well as to plousios, and if so, why? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:13, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: I think you are right that "abundantly supplied" is prolix. I think the nuance that needs to be added is the laziness when some humans are abundantly supplied with food and entertainment. I'm not familiar with `ashir but look forward to learning more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:40, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::: In general, I can recommend Weingreen's excellent work ''[http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Grammar-Classical-Hebrew/dp/0198154224?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew]'' for the novice to Biblical Hebrew grammar. It's not a guide to vocabulary, obviously, and it's not in itself sufficient to give the experience and fluency necessary to attempt a translation project of this magnitude, but it's a good place to start. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::: For vocabulary, [http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 Brown/Driver/Briggs] is the standard reference work, as far as I know. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 11:01, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I think what is needed are more nuanced definitions. The Bible uses the term rich as a blanket reference to those of monetary as well as spiritual wealth, and I think having cotextual definitions for each occurrence would be a generally good idea - such as avaricious (ie desire for riches beyond one's needs) for the cited example and others, and e.g. rich-spirited (or similar) for other occurrences. Plus further definitions as appropriate --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 11:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Tetragrammata ==

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Grace==
I think the translation of grace is overly simplistic. To me grace is not merely generosity, but generosity towards those in whom it is undeserved. And is a gift specifically ftom the Lord to mankind, and allows for forgivness of the unrepentant sinner and ultimately is the reason God loves each and every one of His creation irrespective of whether they honour His word.

I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, and it is an honourable cause, it's just that IMO grace has always been a concept requiring more understanding than the word itself conveys, and is a central concept to Christianity itself, and by changing it to 'generosity' may hinder people from seeking its true, deeper meaning.

Grace is one of my favourite concepts to learn about and (attempt to) explain to others as I feel not only the concept, but the word itself, has a beauty to it that shouldn't be tampered with --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 19:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, J00ni, this is a lovely explanation! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:J00ni, your point is well taken, but the fact remains that there are millions who are misled by the term "grace" in many instances of its use. They may like the sound, but they think it is something other than what was intended.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Peace ==

The retranslation of "peace" is based on the Greek word. Why is there a citation to the Old Testament on this point? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

: cf LXX: ''καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς εἰ εἰς '''εἰρήνην''' οὗτοι ἐκπορεύονται συλλάβετε αὐτοὺς ζῶντας καὶ εἰ εἰς πόλεμον ζῶντας συλλάβετε αὐτούς'' - your Greek is likely better than mine, but I don't see the issue with this translation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't dispute at all εἰρήνη has a meaning of tranquility, but it ''also'' has a meaning of absence-of-war - much as ''peace'' does in English. See also [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ei)rh%2Fnh&lang=greek&group=bilevel these sources] - e.g. “ἢ μέγα φρονει̂ς,” ἔφη, “ἐπὶ ται̂ς ἐψηφισμέναις μὲν πεντήκοντα ναυσίν, οὐδέποτε δὲ πληρωθησομέναις; οὕτω γὰρ ἠρέθικας Φίλιππον καὶ τοιαυ̂τα εἴρηκας, '''ἐξ ὡ̂ν οὐκ εἰρήνη γένοιτ' ἂν ἐκ πολέμου, ἀλλ' ἐξ εἰρήνης πόλεμος ἀκήρυκτος'''.” ([[Aeschines]]) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:46, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, you link to a superb online source! It's amazing what is available now on the internet!

:: The point is that "peace" in English is increasingly taken to mean an absence of war, thanks (or "no thanks") to the influence of the media and politics on culture. Very few people take "peace" to mean "tranquility" any more. But Jesus was not telling the Apostles to oppose Roman wars when He said, "peace be with you." He was speaking about an inner tranquility and lack of fear or anxiety. That's a meaning that needs to be restored against the ravages of the [[devolution of language]], particularly with the rise in anxiety disorders.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:16, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't doubt your assertion that at the moment, the primary meaning of the English "peace" is as you say. However, I do question the recency of this semantic position, and also whether this was not the case with eirene. I'd assume that someone listening to Jesus would have understood the Aramaic term he used to have a hefty flavour of non-war about it (in general, if not necessarily in context). In the same way, a reader of the English would understand that "peace" has multiple shades of meaning, and will select as appropriate. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::: But virtually no one today understands "peace" to mean "anxiety free," and Jesus never spoke about foreign policy in His time. It's a complete mismatch, I think, due to the cultural changes in the meaning of "peace" to most people.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:02, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: An absence of interpersonal strife is not just foreign policy. Also, I think that virtually ''everyone'' today uses the adjective "peaceful" to mean "without anxieties or distractions"; it's easy to underestimate people in general. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Relinquish or Release ==

The term "relinquish" has negative connotations: it means giving up something that may not have been properly yours. I don't see how that is an improvement over "release", which has positive connotations of resulting in a greater good.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:21, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: yes, good point, but "release" sounds too much like what one does to a captive. I think possibly something more like "hand over" or "give away" is in line with paradidomi - am I reading it too literally? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: "Release" does have that political/legal connotation, but I don't see that as causing a problem in the context. "Hand over" has a negative connotation, and requires a recipient who does not exist in this context; "give away" implies an inappropriate abandonment of something typically having little value, and that doesn't fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:00, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Question about implementation==

This is an interesting and worthwhile project - I'm learning a lot from reading about the various interpretations of the terms in question. What I'm wondering, though, is how to best implement the outcome for others to use. My first thought would be to choose a "baseline" version of the Bible as a starting point, like the King James Version, then apply the revised translations that are approved and publish this as a "New Conservative Bible" (since calling it the "Conservapedia Bible" would be immodest, I'd think). This could be done as a searchable electronic copy under a dedicated namespace on the CP site. The text itself would be protected, of course, but the talk pages would allow for background, commentary and suggestions for other improved translations. Does this proposal make sense? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::I think that this project could be a good project if it was done better. Currently, I think this project is overreaching. I think in order to do proper Bible translating you need to understand Greek/Hebrew and ANE culture at a bare minimum. I also reasonably believe that in order to do a conservative translating of the Bible you need to understand the Bible exegesis method of Historico-grammatical exegesis which is given here: http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm So far, I don't see see aforementioned being done in any great depth. That is why I don't think the "New Conservative Bible" will catch on. I think Protestant Christian conservatives will stick with their KJV, NKJV, and NASB Bibles for some time to come. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 28 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, is it 'overreaching' to have a vision? I don't think so. And can man achieve great aims without vision? No. Throughout history, those who have achieved mighty things have been accused of 'overreaching themselves' at the outset. We should have confidence and Hope, and lend support. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: The efficiency of the learning from this project is far greater than in any other medium, much higher than reading a book, attending a seminar, watching television, discussing with people, etc. In merely a few spare minutes or hours, the participants in this project have learned more than they could have after spending 10x or 100x many hours in any other medium. For that reason alone, I feel this project has been more than worthwhile. As Bugler says, let's see where it goes from here. What's there to lose? Nothing, but there is everything to gain in greater [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:05, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Exactly. Learning about just ''one'' of these misconceptions/mistranslations allows you to better understand tens, hundreds, or even ''thousands'' of biblical passages and principles which use the words under examination. "Logos" is a good example, since it's the basis of all creation in John 1:1. "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Better understanding that one word educates a reader enormously about God, his word, and his creation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:20, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: I agree completely. Just one of the insights in the table in this entry can be worth hundreds of hours of personal effort in value. A stronger understanding of these concepts is priceless. Yet it is freely available here for merely the click of the mouse. Can you imagine the value when this table is two or three times as long?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Bugler, you are setting up a false dilemma. If you were more aware of exegesis you would know that. One of the principles of sound exegesis is to set the limits of the passage as can be seen by the link I offered before. With that in mind, I certainly did not say I was against having a vision. At the same time, often without adequate preparation the visions people have often fail. I doubt the Normandy invasion would have been successful if the generals merely had a vision apart from adequate preparation. The Normandy invasion was successful though because the generals had a vision which also had sufficient preparation. Now if you think you can retranslate the Bible without being knowledgeable in Greek/Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, and exegetical principles then go right ahead, but I reasonably think your quest is rather quoxitic as can be seen by your rather poor exegesis of my previous post. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I'd suggest that first we establish what sort of a translation we want; then we start with a smallish book with fairly simple language, and move to another book when that's completed and polished. I'd suggest Esther as a nice place to start - it's got a good consistent narrative, the Hebrew is not overcomplicated or overpoetic, and we don't want to get any "teething problems" in something like one of the Gospels. An interlinear approach might be best; and I'd really suggest we do our best to work ''in vacuo'' without too much reference to established translations. Do people prefer working with the Masoretic vowels, notes, and breaks, or just from the plain text, allowing for wider interpretation as to the vocalization? How do we arrrange dealing with disputes and variation in text? One talk-page per chapter? I'd like to be able to suggest that we take an LXX approach and work individually and have the translations miraculously agree, but the evidence above suggests this might not be the best plan ;) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: This is not to say that there won't be opportunities to discuss the translation issues - right from the start there's some interesting questions. As a test run, how do people here render ''ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המלך מהדו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה''? The word ויהי is not easy to make smooth in English, there are at least two or three standard renditions for אחשורוש, and the country (or province, or state) names are always something of a point of contention. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:25, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: (and, with all respect, I think we should leave Daniel and Ezra/Nehemia until we know we have someone who's properly competent in Aramaic). [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:42, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::Denise raises an interesting question. While the table-format in the article is educational, is the purpose of this project to begin an all-new translation of the Bible "from scratch", i.e. from the original ancient texts, or is it to start with a pre-compiled baseline like the King James Version and look to bring clarity to selected phrases by reinterpreting them? Conservapedia's own article on the Bible points out differences in the layout and naming of the Old Testament books between the Jewish and Christian collections, so is the scope of this project to look at that as well? I'm totally out of my league here, but asking so that the people who are contributing have a consistent plan to follow. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::: Personally, I have no objection to either - but if we're going to have a retranslation as Aschlafly originally proposed I think it's intellectually sterile to re-translate a translation, taking all but one or two assumptions of the translators for granted. If we wanted to do that, I think that he would have suggested a commentary or gloss. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:55, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== "Rich" Issue ==

(Undent) Well I have 2 more (different) in hard copy. ''The Complete Word Study New Testament'' Spiros Zodhiates, which says it means "rich" And the ''Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament'' Rienecker and Rogers. which says it means "rich" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word. What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different. It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions. It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank. The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need. The concept is not bounded by time. Solomon had great wealth. Possibly greater than anyone since. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone care to respond?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 11:41, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:31, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, Tim, I didn't notice your edits in the middle here. The Greek word does not mean "many more possessions than they need" as you suggest. Rather, it means "fully supplied" or "abundantly supplied." The term refers equally well to the person who has just what he needs and no more. In short, it applies to virtually everyone in developed nations, fully fed and entertained. That's why the term "rich" no longer works because very few of the "abundantly supplied" view themselves as "rich" today, yet Jesus is addressing them. The key to the Greek term and the translation is to capture the vice of an unwillingness to try harder due to the complacently of being fully fed and entertained.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::The word also means rich, the 2 definitions are very close in meaning. Abundantly supplied means more than enough. I agree that many or most of the "abundantly supplied" would not consider themselves rich, but I don't think that they'd consider themselves abundantly supplied either. You say that the greek term is about unwillingness to "try harder," and complacency. That is not true. The word means rich, and abundantly supplied. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 09:57, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: There are many people who are "abundantly supplied" who do not consider themselves "rich". So I disagree that the "2 definitions are very close in meaning" in today's culture. Today nearly all Americans and Europeans are "abundantly supplied" in food, entertainment and other comforts. But very few of them consider themselves "rich". And that's what matters in translating the Bible in a meaningful way. If they have the same misconception about being "abundantly supplied," then that's a good reason to reject that translation also.

::::: When this passage is compared with the Parable of the Talents, see [[Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents]], the real meaning of the term translated as "rich" sharpens into focus: it is the person who has what he needs, but buries it in the ground and does not produce more. "Idle miser" fits both insights well.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: If someone says A, meaning to imply B (what Aschlafly calls the "real meaning" - because A is an exaggeration, an ironic contradiction, hyperbole, metaphor, metonymy, or parable), I think that it's better to translate it as A rather than B - then someone reading the translation will have as close a thought-process as possible to someone reading the original and be able to appreciate the devices used. We're not trying to produce a commentary (beyond that which is inevitable). I think that Aschlafly may have in mind more of a commentary - a guide to interpretation and background - rather than a translation; and there's nothing wrong with that. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: I'm unsure what you mean by your comment, Denise. "A" is "fully supplied" rather than "rich", which is a relative term today. The issue is expressing "fully supplied" in a way that avoids awkward and misleading connotations of that phrase, which to most people today would falsely make them think of a retail store.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Ah, yes, sorry - I should have been more explicit. A is whatever term meaning ''"having enough" or "having a lot" or "rich" or "not poor" (the choice of which is a linguistic issue)''. B is the implication of laziness, stinginess, or whatever personal qualities, which while they may be conjectured from context and from theological exgesis, are not inherent in the word itself. B is a very interesting thing to have in a commentary, especially if one has useful proof-texts for it from elsewhere that support the point being made. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:41, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Denise, you make an excellent point, and thanks for your insight. I continue to learn from your comments and contributions.

::::::::: I guess I need to determine if the Greek term was ever used anywhere to describe an "idle miser" before recommending that as a translation. Maybe I could search for the general usage of the word somehow and see if "idle miser" (or an equivalent) shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: If you're happy to have ancient greek in with your koine (which is probably OK), the Perseus project is a good place to look. Also searching the Septuagint is a good source of ideas. I get annoyed when people ''unthinkingly'' conflate translation and intepretation - the two are linked and every translator is ''ipso facto'' his own exegete, but it must be done consciously - there are many levels of what ''means'' means, and they must be artistically layered to create a well-reading product. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:10, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ ==

I've seen in a few places that this is the general name used for the various forms of Xerxes that ruled Persia. This source cites the one in the Book of Esther as Xerxes I [http://www.answers.com/topic/ahasuerus-1], but I think I've seen him cited as Artaxerses II. He's probably one of the Xerxes or Artaxerxes in the 4th or 5th century, BC (300's-400's). [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Mark Teixeira

2008-12-24T17:02:37Z

Mikek: Deal not final yet

'''Mark Teixeira''', born 11 April 1980, is a [[Major League Baseball]] first baseman that most recently played for the [[Los Angeles Angels]]. He has previously played for the [[Texas Rangers]] and [[Atlanta Braves]]. On December 23, 2008 he agreed to an eight year, $180 million contract with the [[New York Yankees]], which will make him the third highest paid player in the Major Leagues (and the Yankees) after he passes a physical.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==

*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/teixema01.shtml Mark Teixeira @ Baseball-Reference]

[[Category:Baseball Players]]
[[Category:New York Yankees Players]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Teixeira, Mark}}

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T20:13:54Z

Mikek:

I removed Robert E. Lee. He is ''not'' an American hero--he was a traitor who waged war against his country and his fellow citizens.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:I do understand your point of view; But, before removing Lee I would like to have the opinion of other editors or an honest debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:14, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::What's to debate? He fought for the enemy. He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of loyal American soldiers. If you're going to include Lee in the list, you might as well add Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, Adlrich Ames, Timothy McVeigh, and the 9/11 hijackers to the list.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::To his credit, he came pretty close to being the next George Washington... but I agree, even if he'd won, he'd have been a confederate hero, not an American hero.
:::On a different note - removed Barry Bonds from the links section. With the scandals going on, he really isn't a good role model right now.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 15:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T20:10:59Z

Mikek: /* See also */ Is Bonds really the best guy to link to from this page?

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:RLee.jpg|[[Robert E. Lee]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==

*[[Hank Aaron]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]

[[Category:United States History]]

Marriage

2008-12-16T13:37:52Z

Mikek: /* Attacks on the institution of marriage */

[[Image:Bride and groom signing the book.jpg|thumb|350px]]
'''Marriage''' is the divinely ordained union between one man and one woman, ordained by [[God]]. (Genesis 2:24) It has been practiced as such by just about every culture across geographical locations and time. <ref> "Because there is a natural complementarity between men and women - sexual, emotional, temperamental, spiritual - marriage allows for a wholeness and a completeness that cannot be won in any other way. ([[Bill Bennett]], ''The Broken Hearth'', Page 197) </ref>
Marriage is intended to be a life-long commitment, and typically requently this involves a public commitment (a [[wedding]]) where vows are exchanged to each other and before God.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
:Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.<ref> [http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/05/19/gay_rights_vs_democracy Gay Rights vs. Democracy]</ref>

The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is a picture or analogy of the relationship that God desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the [[Garden of Eden]], in the area of the world that we now know as the Ancient Near East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.

[[Bill Bennett]] wrote:
:Based as it is on the principle of [[complementarity]], marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, [[procreation]]. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman ... <ref>''The Broken Hearth'', Page 197)</ref>

==Biblical marriage advice==
1 Corinthians 7:1-16:
{{cquote|Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?}}

==Modern marriage licenses==
In present-day America, 'getting married' typically involves a marriage license issued by the [[state]] [[government]] or a subdivision thereof (e.g., a county). However, marriage licenses are nowhere mentioned in Scripture; in fact, they are a relatively recent innovation and originally applied only to marriages that were otherwise forbidden.<ref>Information on marriage licenses from Mercy Seat Christian Church [http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm]</ref>

==Attacks on the institution of marriage==
Any society which lessened the sanctity of marriage has perished. Ancient Rome's decline and fall was due in no small part to a growing tolerance of extramarital sex, particularly [[homosexual acts]].

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is no room for [[sexual intercourse]] other than between man and wife. Anything which tolerates or permits [[promiscuity]] weakens society.

Since the middle of the 20th century, activists have sought to destroy the societal pressures that dissuade people from engaging in extramarital sex. Removing the stigma from premarital sex, creating no-fault divorce laws, exalting adultery as "stimulating", and especially de-stigmatizing [[homosexuality]] all weaken the institution of marriage.

A recent ''Newsweek''' article complains that [[Biblical figures]] have not provided good historical examples of marriage, on the grounds that [[Abraham]] begot [[Ishmael]] by a maidservant and [[Jacob]] had two wives and sons with both of their servants. The article also criticizes [[Jesus]] and [[St. Paul]] for remaining single. <ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1</ref>

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

==See also==
*[[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony]], an example of a traditional marriage service
*[[Civil marriage]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/marriage/ What Liberals Say - Category: Marriage], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Marriage

2008-12-15T18:13:54Z

Mikek: /* Mistake in Newsweek article info */ Reply

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

== Qualifier and citations? ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Mistake in Newsweek article info ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Marriage

2008-12-15T16:08:04Z

Mikek: /* Mistake in Newsweek article info */

Talk:Marriage

2008-12-15T16:05:03Z

Mikek: /* Mistake in Newsweek article info */ new section

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

== Qualifier and citations? ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Mistake in Newsweek article info ==

"A recent Newsweek' article complains that Biblical figures have not provided good historical examples of marriage, on the grounds that Abraham begot Isaac by a maidservant."
The Newsweek article never actually specified the name of the son that Abraham had with his servant, but it was Ishmael, not Isaac [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:05, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal reasoning

2008-12-12T19:36:14Z

Mikek: /* Sourced quote vs opening statement */ new section

==Environmental vs. cognitive Origin==

The idea that the circumstances one grows up in has more of an impact on their political outlook is not surprising. It's not easy to step outside one's upbringing and begin to think independently of it, let alone in contrast to it. The one key factor that was omitted is that there is often a strong social pressure to conform to the norms of one's upbringing, so taking a stand on what you believe intellectually to be right can often mean giving up the support of friends and family who disagree. Someone deciding to embrace a faith different from their parents would likely face harsh disapproval, for instance, even when the change is toward the conservative.

Sometimes these norms are purely political - Sarah Palin railed against socialism and the redistribution of wealth by government, but each year the Alaska Permanent Fund sends checks for thousands of dollars to each citizen regardless of age or their ability/desire to work. The state then solicits Federal funds for infrastructure and other improvements, in effect having the government take tax money from residents of other states and redistributing it to Alaska even as a surplus of local funds is given to people who've done nothing to earn it. This is the epitome of the kind of state-run socialist redistribution of wealth that she campaigned against, but because this was the social and political norm of the culture she grew up in, she was able to reconcile it with her conservative outlook.

I think this is the start of an interesting article, but as with the Palin example above the disconnect between one's environmental upbringing/context and their cognitive reasoning can be strong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:54, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:Excellent analysis. I'm glad you keep coming back! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:05, 12 December 2008 (EST)

== Sourced quote vs opening statement ==

I can't access the source here, so maybe there's something else there that changes this, but... how does the quote lead to the statement that liberal reasoning is irrational and biased? I could understand if you said political reasoning in general is irrational and biased, but nothing in the quote favors a specific view. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:36, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T15:08:11Z

Mikek: /* My response to compromise proposal */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: You missed a few, Ed:
:* you have a double standard
:* What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant ... but disloyal and subversive.
:* endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting
: And that's just from posts in this section. I've yet to see you take anybody to task for labelling me "liberal".
: But the point remains, as I have pointed out before, that sometimes personal remarks are justified. I'd also dispute that "retract the unjustified slurs" is a personal remark. Rather, it's a justifiable request to retract comments that are both slurs and unjustified.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Compromise proposals ==

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: You have ''still'' not justified the claim of "censorship", despite being called on to do so. As for compromise, see my comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: To me, it sounds like I'm on side A and you're on side B. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Much of it has been and still ''is'' posted as established fact. The article until recently said unambiguously "Obama is a Muslim", and it still says that Obama uses the "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan. And there's been no evidence of "the two schools of thought [being] presented with equal esteem". Where, for example, is there even the slightest hint that there is no such thing as a "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan? As for insulting and intemperate language, try looking in a mirror. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Of course. Though I wish you luck in trying to get your ideas across to Philip and his acolytes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::Please, Bugler, stop being divisive by labeling groups as 'cliques'. You said that "prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact." You are ''almost'' correct in saying this (I will get to that later), but much of this speculation (we seem to have agreed it is speculation) comes before many undisputed facts about Barack Obama. This is the same as saying these opinions are more important than these facts. Also, the title of the section most opposed by many users, "Barack Obama will likely be the First Muslim President," is an opinion. The opinions should be put at the bottom of the page, in order to promote the importance of undisputed facts. Surely you could agree to this. I have offered multiple compromises now. Please consider them.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*I believe the "clique" remark was made by Bolly, the editor who proposed a compromise above. Does everyone need a little cooling off period? I also remind others that it isn't Bugler's decision, it is Andy's. Take a breath, everyone....have a soothing beverage! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Yeh my bad! I just used the terms 'clique' and 'posse' to differentiate the two groups, there was absolutely no offence intended at all and I'm more then happy to change either of the names for sake of ease. But I second TK, lets all take a deep breath in and out, and move on. A lot of unpleasantness has gone before in this, why not, purely in the interests of the project, drop all of these name callings and so on. Let's just draw a line through the above and start with a clean slate. Sound good? --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::And it was Bolly who first used the term 'posse'. These are just convenient shorthands; but use the terms 'Team C' and Team P' if you consider it preferable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Bolly is ''using'' them as convenient shorthands, but one of them didn't start that way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

=== My response to compromise proposal ===

I thank Bolly for attempting to find a compromise. I've never been one to accept compromising the truth with a lie, but this situation is not (as a whole) as black and white as that, so I'm prepared to consider suggestions. However, I would make the following points:
* Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere.
* I consider my actions and argument so far to already be a huge compromise.
** I, along with most others (including administrators) who have expressed disagreement with the article, would like to see the entire section about Obama being a Muslim removed, along with other improvements. (For example, the statement that Obama referred to the "57 states" is in there as an "insight", not as a blooper.)
** That doesn't mean that there may not be a few valid points in that section that could be kept; just that that section as a whole should not be there.
** Even if that section was to be kept, it should not be given such prominence, including above the table of contents.
** Nevertheless, all I have tried to do ''so far'' is remove three spurious claims from that section. Only removing three spurious claims when I believe the section as a whole should be removed already is in effect a massive compromise. Yet the other side refuses to even accept ''that'' much! And at the same time they have the gall to accuse ''us'' of not accepting compromise!
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the [[first black president]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Thank you Ed, for your participation in this conversation. The more sysops we have talking about this the better. And if someone who likes the current Obama article would propose a compromise, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. We need to start moving toward an ultimate compromise, or all of this is useless.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Philip said: ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere''. Now does he mean, 'unless Andy cuts this Gordian knot'? Well, he has. Andy has made his views quite clear, and these are to support the status quo '''which is a compromise''': none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts, just as evidence to be considered. Given Philip's impenitent and rebellious behaviour, one is tempted to interpret ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere'' as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable. Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected as those of teh ultimate arbiter. For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia, and leads one to question his motives in doing so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::::: "''...which is a compromise...''": Huh? How is that a "compromise"?
::::: "''...none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts...''": Absolutely false, as I've already pointed out.
::::: "''... one is tempted to interpret [Philip's comment] as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable.''": Which totally ignores that it's not just ''my'' opinion, but that of many people including senior administrators, as has been repeatedly pointed out, but you keep ignoring or misrepresenting.
::::: "''For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia...''": No, making false claims about Obama is damaging Conservapedia.
::::: "''Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected ...''": I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is one of the most hypocritical claims in this issue. The hypocrisy is in decrying me for not respecting the leader, whilst the article grossly disrespects the leader-elect of the people posting this rubbish! (And no, it is not just fair criticism, which I don't have a problem with; it goes far beyond that.)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::You are outdoing yourself in the personal remarks today, Philip, both in this section and in your edit summary. As for the 'points' you make, I'm too bored to try and explain to you yet again, so, as TK suggests, will just leave you to crow away like a cockerel on a dunghill. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: Is that a promise? To stay out of this discussion?? Oh please let it be so! As for personal remarks, that edit comment is apt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Ah, [[Last wordism]]!. It just gets better and better. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Did you really just block somebody and then reply accusing him of last wordism? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== "You Say Tomato, I Say Tomatoe; Let's Call The Whole Thing Off!" ==

So far as many are concerned, this whole "debate", "argument" or "discussion" is pretty much moot. Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it. People can continue to make this some kind of weird parlor game, an endless debating society, some sort of faux Wikipedia tribunal or commission if they want...

OR we can just simply ignore this bogus "issue" and leave the ''insurrectionists'' to scream into the wind. There is no argument without someone to argue with, right? Silly and petty disputes, generated merely to satisfy the vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with, are a giant time waster. The United Nations, with its endless talk, talk, talk is not something we aspire to emulate here.

Wikipedia has countless thousands of pages of just such arguments stored away, and if this is someone's idea of being productive -- engaging in circular, repetitive and seemingly endless talk -- enjoy yourselves! My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:24, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:Since when is the issue "bogus"? Since you decreed it to be so? I also note that this particular page, which I've said did not have much merit, was started by a senior administrator, and one you consider a friend. So you're rejecting ''his'' attempts now?
:"''Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it.''": So you concur that Andy simply decides encyclopaedia article content by decree, regardless of the evidence and logic (Andy's own requirements for determining truth) and the views of senior administrators? Andy himself has never claimed that, but I think that it's very telling that his supporters in this, such as you and Bugler, can see his actions for what they are, deciding truth by his opinion.
:"''...vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with...''": I know who that description fits, and it ain't me.
:"''My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill.''": So now you're suggesting that we just ''ignore'' Andy? Or, if you'd prefer a serious comment, that's the fallacious argument of begging the question.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Loop

2008-12-02T18:10:40Z

Mikek:

So, what do you think about moving this to [[Loop (computer programming)]] or [[Loop (computers)]]? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 12:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:As soon as it gets in the way of other loops, we'll have to move it. Were you thinking of the little strip of cloth in your pants that the belt goes through? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::A loop can be a whole lot of things... any kind of a routine that's done repeatedly, an aerial maneuver, a part of a roller coaster, a repeating cycle (eg music, video, programming, etc.), a circuit that you might follow (eg a patrol), a circle of rope, a figure skating jump, a type of finger print pattern, the name of a band, a book, and other media. I'm going to stop now. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 13:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-12-02T17:04:18Z

Mikek:

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals.
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

User talk:DeanS

2008-11-21T15:47:24Z

Mikek: /* News suggestions procedure */ new section

Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:What do you mean by "protect better" Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks, Bro! ==

I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, "sigh".--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Conservapedia:Featured articles. ==

Your opinion is needed in: [[Holy Days]], [[Architecture]], [[Great Flood]] and [[Deconstruction]].
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:39, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Welcome==

Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]

:Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Christian solidarity==

Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks and a request or two. ==

Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase "seducing a child" - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pre-screening of News stories==

Just curious - why the "No article prescreening" policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.

:I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.

::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - "Unitarian/Universalist" is probably closer than "Agnostic", but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself.

::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the "feel" of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors.

::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Dinsdale, You said, "I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen". What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&diff=prev&oldid=502069 "... I'd be glad to participate in article screening..."]

:::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.

:::I find very little of the "respectful disagreement" from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.

:::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was "I'd be glad to participate in article screening but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project." Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Didn't mean to step on toes==
I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his "line in the sand" in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can "let the majority vote" (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I don't understand what "liberal bias" is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Wikinews==
DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502572&oldid=502384 corrected].

:The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=66589&diff=502578&oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank you!==
For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT]] 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.

:Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful <nowiki>[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]</nowiki> [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&diff=prev&oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

==Thank You for the Unblock==

I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews Project ==

Mr. DeanS,

Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.

--[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:Jp, I have reconsidered your idea to use the Conservapedia wanted articles. Just using the news wikilinks was okay, but including the general wanted articles is even better. Plus these articles also add to their count. If you want to add articles, add them to the bottom of the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Conservapedia_wanted_articles|Conservapedia wanted articles]] section. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Response to 'add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions', I would but do not have access to mainpage:right. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that you can add the missing wikilinks ''before'' the suggestion is posted.
:::Thanks for continuing to add new wanted articles.
:::What do you think about the section on revising the news postings? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I am fine with adding wikilinks before postings, even if they do not get posted.
::::My pleasure to help CP
::::Sounds interesting but I am not sure I understand. Do you mean, create a short essay/summary, then link back? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Once you add the revised headline summary, I will replace my headline with your revised headline on the Main Page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey DeanS, what is your policy if we created a news item that wasn't posted. But then the item was created and posted by a SysOp? Do I still get credit? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe you should still get the credit. Add a comment below your suggestion and you will get the credit. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 21:45, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Outdated news item ==

The main page has a news item that says: "According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264." You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== IP's ban ==

(Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).

I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==

How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's "Lowjinx." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

:They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].

:I prefer to call them "possessed". They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.
--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Good, steady work==

Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.

I also like your "wiki gnome" work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&curid=72030&diff=506590&oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==

I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their "factual" claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]].

:::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the "newspaper of record", conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:It's not '''"the"''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out "as recorded by CQ Transcriptions". Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Republican Convention Headline ==

Last phrase should read "Democratic Vice Presidential nominee", not "Democrat Vice Presidential nominee." Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

:Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== RIP Bill Melendez ==

Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

==Sysop Q==
How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]

:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Re: New article request process ==

Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&diff=511110&oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

==Pictures==
DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008
===Other Pictures===
Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.

http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg

http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg

http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008

:Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Betty Ford==
I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg

:Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==Night Edits==
DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

:::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project." ==

This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before the suggestions are posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with "Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here". But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the "proper" place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:DirkB, although it doesn't make sense to you, there is a reason for this rule. I want that page to contain suggestions only. I don't want liberals debating about the suggestions. From what I've seen on the Talk:Main Page, liberals like to discuss some of the articles, other editors reply, and this goes back and forth. I don't care whether you or other liberals agree with the suggested article. You can have these endless discussions on the Talk:Main Page after it's posted, not on the suggestions page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think he liked your reply... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Too bad. I'm not here to please the liberals.
:::Good block, btw. You better get ready to defend the permablock from Philip, etc. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<sigh> [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== {{User|DRamon}} ==

Do you think he should be unblocked? Perhaps I was a little harsh, seeing as he has been creating content. I took a look at his edits after he edited another user's userpage, though the user has now reverted back to Ramon's version. Earlier this issue was brought up in Schlafly's talkpage. I mainly blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=prev&oldid=517564]. The parodists have been having fun with that list. Also he had been warned before. Take a look at his edits, is he a parodist? Do you think unblock? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:I do think DRamon should be unblocked and I don't see him as a parodist. If you want to warn him for editing someones user page that would be appropriate. Thanks for asking. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::User is unblocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks Henry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 02:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate user name ==
A new user has joined with the user name : Tony Blair. could you please look into it?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:He's a vandal and has already been blocked. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Satan... Carrot Top... ==

You have to at least admit that was pretty funny. It's rare that the vandals and parodists are actually funny instead of stupid. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's why I changed the block comment. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Wiki support==
DeanS, as a member of Wikiproject: News, I feel you have spoiled me with attentiveness and clear direction. As a member of Wikiproject: Religion, I have no such contact, no direction, no replies. It is frustrating but I can live with that. I wanted to pick your brains about site structure that I have unable to find in the help section. Category's seem to have boundaries. A rule of thumb, no more than three, correct? Multiple category's on similar topics not looked upon as correct? e.g. Catholic Church and Christianity. Sub-categories have more precedent than category tagging? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the compliment, Jp. I don't have the same passion for categories and I defer an answer to those who have more interest. I would suggest you start a Wikiproject:Categories and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Fred1776==

Was it really necessary to revert that last edit by Fred1776? It was on a talk page, and was not rude in anyway. Robust, certainly, but neither rude nor insulting. "Liberalist version whatever"'s edits were vandalism: this was an opinion. It's one I happen to share and I am sure that many on this site share. Surely Aschlafly is not such a tender soul that he needs protecting from this. It might make unpleasant reading, but it's surely nicer and more decently put than a "mild" rebuke from Bugler --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:Lecturing the site owner is not appropriate, period. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

== Something's not right with that mainpage edit ==

It looks like you posted the same story twice, though I see what you meant to do. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:I thought about taking off the second link, but I wanted to provide twice as much fun for the liberals. I'm going to change it now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Just wanted to point out mispelling of 'organization' in the human rights watch story. I don't know if we should be promoting HRW. I believe their foundations are the monitoring|promotion of homosexual rights.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Organisation is correct English in the home of that tongue! As for HRW's Liberal bias - well, if even ''they'' are condemning Chavez... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Misspelling corrected. Btw, ''misspelling'' has two s's. I don't believe we're promoting HRW, just that we agree with them in this instance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::::As you can tell, my grammar and spelling needs much improvement. The news headline: Could the he U.S. mortgage, needs a fix'n. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fixed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, I think you may be confusing HRW with HRC (Human Rights Campaign), which *is* an organization based on the promotion of homosexual rights. It's easy to get the two confused, which was probably the intent when they came up with the name for HRC. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

==Another brainless attempt to hack my account==
This time from IP 24.21.149.251. Could you do me a favour and give them a daisycutter? Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, Dean [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

== ChristMaster2000 ==

A user called Christmaster2000 keeps writing 'McCain = The end of the world' at the top of pages. Can you stop him?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:41, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

:Where? I don't see the changes? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

::There was one on [[Athletics]], which I've reverted, plus a few others. Actually he seems to have been blocked already - I thought he was active because his change was still on the Athletics page.

== Thanks for unblocking me ==

Thank you. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your welcome. Philip convinced me to undo your block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== Archive mainpageright ==

Since you're a regular who archives the main page, can you do so sometime soon? [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 03:48, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. Btw, Conservative took [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=529716 my] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News&diff=next&oldid=530094 archive] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=530125 restored] it to the Main page when he added the ''Evolutionary Racism of Hitler and Darwin'' section to the bottom of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageleft&diff=530432&oldid=529771 Mainpageleft]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg lawsuit==
Since the claims made on the mainpage In the News headline were [http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss shown to be false] four days before the headline was posted on Conservapedia, will you please remove the entry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 16:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 17:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
`

== News- Debate ==

Shouldn't the second presidential debate be discussed in the news section? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:Done. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:07, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Family Values==
I made a grammar burp. No such thing as won't. Also, count me in on the previous news project.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:55, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:I disagree with saying "won't" is a grammar burp. "Won't" is correct. "Won't" is a contraction of "will not". [http://www.edufind.com/English/grammar/Tenses14.cfm]
:Thanks for agreeing to participate in the previous news subproject. I'm going to set up a special page for our coordination and will link to it from your talk page and the subproject. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:51, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Let's block registration wave ==

Dean, let's permanently block everyone registered between 11:30 and noon. I think they're fake. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I blocked the IP 93.106.19.228 - it was the same one for all 101 accounts.
:08:57, October 11, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 93.106.19.228 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: 101 accts set up from 08:30, October 11, 2008 to 08:43, October 11, 2008)
:I blocked the rest of them. They're all blocked now. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:31, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Great effort. I thought the IP might be the same, such that blocking one would block all. But it didn't hurt to block the names also, in case someone tried to access it from a different IP.

:: In the future, I have an even more powerful way to delete the accounts.

:: Thanks again for your alert effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikinews/subproject ==
Definetely, your idea is a must. Though, explain to me about '''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries.''' Is this the same as Rewrite current headlines?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 18:11, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:No, it's not the same. Rewriting the current headlines is for someone that wants to improve headlines on the current Main page. The ''Suggestions for new Previous Breaking News summaries'', is like the other Previous Breaking news, but the page hasn't been created yet. I want us to create those pages and link them to our Conservapedia articles and incorporate their content into the corresponding articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Once additions are made, would you suggest strikethrough font the listing?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:32, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Once additions are made, move the listing to this new section: [[Wikiproject:News/Previous_Breaking_News#Completed_updates_to_September_2008|Completed updates to September 2008]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The sheer size is overwhelming. We need an army of helpers.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 00:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I totally agree. Since this is a long term project, I'm hoping we can make progress while recruiting others to join our efforts. I would like to have a competition similar to the other subprojects - Wanted pages and News suggestions. Any ideas? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Competition is your best bet. I can suggest members pick categories that they are fond of- like ACLU. Then their responsibility includes News additions, past and future, ACLU posts.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:12, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Interesting idea. Let's say you picked the ACLU subject. Then someone else picked Barack Obama. How would the competition work? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:19, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I just want to say that I think this is a bad idea. I realize Jpatt worked very hard on the recent additions to [[ACLU]] and I commend him for that, but I don't think the additions help the article. Since news headlines, by their nature, aren't broadly descriptive, they don't fit well in most articles. They end up being made into lists, which I don't think satisfy the "conscise" requirement of the commandments. Additionally, most of the sources for the news article are blogs or internet news sites which generally aren't up to the standards needed for regular articles. Maybe there will be times when a news headline or two is relevant to an article, but I think wholesale moving of headlines is not appropriate. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:58, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:I am just following orders for the Wikinews/subproject. I will wait for DeanS to rule before adding any more.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 23:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

::Where are the rules? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, I found them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for your efforts Jp. I'm glad you decided to wait before adding more headlines.
:I agree with a couple of HelpJazz's points. I don't think the wholesale moving of headlines is appropriate either. The idea is to use the news links as a ''reference'' to improve the article. We need to discuss the details on the corresponding previous news talk page.
:I also don't see how we can do this as a competition. We want quality instead of quantity on these edits.
:I disagree that this is a bad idea. While inserting the headlines directly into the article isn't the right approach, I believe the news links provide unique material that can improve the article.
:I also disagree with the notion we shouldn't use blogs or internet news sites as resources. The mainstream media doesn't provide much material we can use because of their liberal bias. Conservative truth is found in these blogs and we will continue to use these in our articles and news items.
:In summary, I think we need to be careful how we use these news items. If done in the proper way, these links can provide valuable reference material for our articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:32, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==FYI==
Hello Dean. As a Mormon, I feel you should know that User Conservative has been promoting the blogs of a man named Mariano Grinbank who writes such blogs as [[Atheism is Dead]], [[Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?]], [[Atheism Dissected]] and others (I say “promoting” because these blogs would not warrant encyclopedia entries on their own; they are hosted by popular free blog sites and have little traffic). There is nothing wrong with this, however the same Mariano is a dedicated anti-Mormon who writes a blog [http://www.lifeanddoctrinemormonism.blogspot.com/ attacking Mormonism], calling it “offensive religion”, and saying “Mormonism has sought to discredit Christianity”, and “everything that Mormonism does, everything it teaches, everything it stands for is an offense against Christianity.” I don’t think this is the sort of character Conservapedia should be promoting. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks for the info. I have no problem with Conservative promoting the blogs against Atheism and Richard Dawkins. I'm also aware that there are several anti-Mormons on this site. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::My concern isn't about the anti-atheism blogs, which I'm sure are fine for this site, but the fact that these links prominently link to the same writer's anti-Mormon blog, which Conservapedia is therefore indirectly promoting. A reader who finds one of these blogs through Conservapedia and finds it convincing may easily look at the other links to the other blogs and be led to a screed condemning Mormonism. That is my concern, but if you don't object then that's fine. I just felt you should be informed. [[User:SamJ|SamJ]] 09:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Your objection is noted. I hope you will make some positive contributions to Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== My talk page ==

According to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] I am in control of my own talk page. I have no intention of getting embroiled in an edit war here, but why is this not being respected? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] # 5. Advertisements are prohibited. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Username change ==

I apologize for using an inappropriate username. I did not see a statement of Conservapedia's username policy on the account creation page. May I suggest that you folks add one there? It might prevent misunderstandings and hard feelings in the future. —[[User:AshleyS|Asphalt P . Stanky]]

:You should have seen the following when you signed up the first time:
:"Note: Offensive user names will result in that user name being blocked and perhaps the IP address being blocked. Frivolous user names, names of prominent living persons, and user names consisting of, for example, all capital letters or all the same character, may also result in that user name being blocked. User names based on your real name or initials are preferred."
:That policy seems clear to me. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

==The M&M factor==

Thanks for the quick revert. I was just about to ban and revert, but you beat me to it. We should write more about the similarities between LDS and UC. Tithing is 10-30%, isn't it? And our youth now do a 1 or 2 year mission before college. I call it learning from our elders. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:22, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Tithing is 10%. The missions are 2 years for young men and 1.5 years for young women. Also, some senior couples go on missions for 1.5 years. Some men go to college for a year before serving their mission, since the minimum age is 19 years old for the men. The male missionaries are called "Elders", because they must be ordained as Elders in the Melchizedek priesthood before they serve a mission. Women must be 21 before they can serve a mission, and if they aren't married by then, they are eligible to serve a mission. [http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/membership-in-christ-s-church/missionary-work Mormon.org - Missionary Work] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 08:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Funny Jeopardy Question ==

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoMspJqqVcA&feature=related
A garden tool - but also means sexual immoral --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Question==
Can I contact off list about the LDS? Would you unlock you email for 5 minutes?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Yes, you may contact me offline. My email is unlocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I am very very very sorry, for describing Mormons, as cultists. Please forgive me, I got very angry and stopped thinking-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Forgiven. I appreciate your contributions to Conservapedia and hope we can remain civil. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Great block ==

Great block, Dean, on "JasonAllen". I was going to use the term "liberal namecalling" for that block. Your reason was charitably understated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks. I realized that was the wrong block reason and i changed it. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 20:30, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== News suggestions procedure ==

Am I doing this right? I realized a couple things while I was going through the process (admittedly, didn't read all the guidelines before I started), and hopefully I'm on the right track now. I improved my entry to include appropriate links; one thing I think I did wrong was to add the pages to the wanted pages list before my suggestion made it to the front page, but they seem like pretty useful pages in general, so I'm leaving them up there for now - if I have time this weekend, I'll make those articles if somebody hasn't by then. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:47, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Wikiproject:News/Wanted page

2008-11-21T15:41:44Z

Mikek: /* Wanted Pages for "In the news" section - To be created */

Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a wanted page for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

==Contributions==
This table is a count of ''completed'' wanted pages per contributor. This table lists only those contributors with 5 or more pages completed. 
For the full list, see the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page/Completed|Wanted page - Completed archives]] page. 
'''The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on [[Conservapedia Day]] 2008.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Contributor
! Number of articles
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>134</center>
|-
| [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
| <center>135</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:DirkB|DirkB]]
| <center>18</center>
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| <center>16</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>51</center>
|-
| [[User:Human|Human]]
| <center>7</center>
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>27</center>
|-
| [[User:Markr|Markr]]
| <center>8</center>
|-
| [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]
| <center>24</center>
|-
| [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]]
| <center>8</center>
|}

==Wanted Pages for "In the news" section - To be created==

*'''Additions to this list''' - Any member of this project may review articles from the Main page and if the wikilink is missing, they may add a wanted article to this list.
*'''Deletions from this list''' The process is:
:*Move the wikilink on this page from the ''To be created'' section to the bottom of the ''Completed'' section with the appropriate credit.
:*Update the number of articles under your name in the table.
:*Find the corresponding term on the Main page or news archives. (Admins)
:*Wikilink to the corresponding Conservapedia article. (Admins)

#[[Boomer Left]]
#[[politics of personal destruction]]
#[[National Unity]]
#[[ordinary]]
#[[R. Barclay Surrick]]
#[[oath of allegiance]]
#[[Rashid Khalidi]]
#[[slash-and-burn politics]]
#[[restlessness]]
#[[non-governmental]]
#[[proliferation]]
#[[Zhao Xiao]]
#[[Larry Schweikart]]
#[[pervasive]]
#[[enthusiasm]]
#[[Raila Odinga]]
#[[assess]]
#[[support]]
#[[The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce]]
#[[Richard Ellis]]
#[[vicious]]
#[[anticipate]]
#[[remind]]
#[[celebrate]]
#[[attempt]]
#[[backer]]
#[[National Finance Committee]]
#[[fortune]]
#[[dissemination]]
#[[decrepitude]]
#[[School Board]]
#[[poise]]d
#[[taxpayer-funded]]
#[[provide]]
#[[skin cell]]
#[[shortcut]]
#[[sprinkle|sprinkling]]
#[[background]]
#[[Hundred]]
#[[disenfranchisement]]
#[[Steven Marquis]]
#[[address]]
#[[Aaron Klein]]
#[[John Batchelor]]
#[[ABC Radio]]
#[[Ahmed Yousef]]
#[[letter of congratulation]]
#[[insist]]
#[[particular]]
#[[reinforce]]
#[[response]]
#[[graduation]]
#[[social justice]]
#[[teachers college]]
#[[Huffington Post]]
#[[constituent]]
#[[George Leef]]
#[[defense]]
#[[editorial]]
#[[sadomasochism]]
#[[Proposition K]]
#[[Michele Bachmann]]
#[[drumbeat]]
#[[Prayer request]]
#[[church bulletin]]
#[[informant]]
#[[indifference]]
#[[instigate]]
#[[Paul Ibrahim]]
#[[coverage]]
#[[misrepresentation]]
#[[foreign fighters]]
#[[condemns]]
#[[wishes]]
#[[popular]]
#[[contestant]]
#[[Jennifer Hudson]]
#[[discover]]
#[[violate]]
#[[condition]]
#[[proposal]]
#[[criminal offense]]
#[[street gang]]
#[[community organizing]]
#[[guarantee]]
#[[procurement]]
#[[department]]
#[[scrutiny]]
#[[defense]]
#[[seminar]]
#[[late]]
#[[call]]
#[[same]]
#[[more]]
#[[clear]]
#[[keep]]
#[[success]]
#[[everybody]]
#[[Plan]]
#[[course]]
#[[chief of staff]]
#[[longtime]]
#[[Washington insider]]
#[[avoid]]
#[[participation]]
#[[despite]]
#[[involvement]]
#[[sleazy]]
#[[fund-raising]]
#[[impressive]]
#[[Census of Marine Life]]
#[[deep ocean]]
#[[creatures]]
#[[Topeka Capital-Journal]]
#[[national]]
#[[John Podesta]]
#[[civic]]
#[[confront]]
#[[recruiter]]
#[[boot camp]]

==Conservapedia wanted articles==
These wanted articles were taken from the [[Special:Wantedpages|Conservapedia wanted articles]] list. Completing these wanted articles adds to your total count.

#[[Railroad Retirement Board]]
#[[Simon Marius]]
#[[Daniel (prophet)]]
#[[Christian Democratic Party (Norway)]]
#[[Meaning]]
#[[Edwin M. Stanton]]
#[[Leslie Orgel]]
#[[Nursing Clinics of North America]]

==Wanted Pages - Completed==
Whenever this section contains over 50 entries, the first fifty entries are added to the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page/Completed|Wanted page - Completed archives]] page so this section doesn't get too large in relation to the page.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion#Requested_articles]]

Talk:Atheistic tools

2008-11-20T15:46:04Z

Mikek: Reply

Is it only atheists that use these tools or do other people use them as well? [[User:JackFinney|JackFinney]] 10:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:A combination of these is how pretty much every religion gets their start. Where would Christianity be without intimidating people (threat of hell), denying Pagan religions, "saving" (killing) the souls of people who wouldn't convert, etc. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Geneva

2008-11-19T21:29:35Z

Mikek: fix links

'''Geneva''' (French: ''Geneve'') is the second-largest city in [[Switzerland]], situated at the western end of Lake Geneva, close to the border with [[France]]. It has a population of 185,000 (metropolitan area: 960,000).

Geneva was the home of the Protestant reformer [[John Calvin]] and became known as 'the Protestant Rome'. At this time it became an independent city state, which was able to resist attempts by the Kingdom of Savoy to annex it in the early seventeenth century. In 1815 it became a part of Switzerland.

The first of the [[Geneva Convention]]s governing the conduct of war were signed in the city in 1864. Since then it has served as the headquarters of many peace-related and humanitarian organisations, including the [[Red Cross|International Red Cross]] and (between 1919 and 1946) the [[League of Nations]]. It is also the European headquarters of the [[United Nations]], and HQ of many of its subsidiary organisations including the [[World Health Organization]].

[[Category:European Cities and Towns]]
[[category:Switzerland]]

Wikiproject:News

2008-11-19T13:23:34Z

Mikek: /* Members */ I don't know how much I'll contribute, but I do occasionally come across things I think would fit here (added one yesterday without reading the directions, hopefully that one's OK)

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

''If you are a liberal...'' we are not going to put [[liberal]] items on the Main Page, so your suggestions will be ignored and you will be removed from this project. You can contribute by creating [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted articles]] that link to the Main page.

Since Conservapedia administrators have edit rights to the "In the news" section of the Main Page, ''Admins are automatically members of Wikiproject:News and do not need to sign up.''

*[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 10:45, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*<s>[[User:AgnethaF|AgnethaF]] 14:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)</s>
*[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 10:52, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 15:22, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:QWest|QWest]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008
*[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 13:08, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
*-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]][[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 09:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 08:23, 19 November 2008 (EST).

==Subprojects==

===In the News===
This subsection is for suggestions for the "In the news" section of the Main Page. The news section is '''not''' trying to be unbiased. News items will be biased toward conservative, Christian people and views.

This doesn't mean we are going to place information which is incorrect, uncertain, or known to be false. Our "bias" is one of interest and perspective. However, the misleading interpretations, wishful thinking and outright lies of the (mainstream) [[liberal media]] will not be presented here. Conservapedia aims to expose and debunk such propaganda.

We're also not trying to reproduce Fox News and report on every news story. There will be a wide range of sources (including blogs) that illustrate news and opinions according to the guidelines.

[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]] the Guidelines. Make your suggestions [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]].

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|News Suggestions]])====
The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on [[Conservapedia Day]] 2008.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 contributors
! Number of suggestions ''as of 11/04/08''
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Jpatt2008|37]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Chippeterson2008|33]]</center>
|-
| [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
| <center>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives/Bugler2008|13]]</center>
|}

===Today in History===
If you have a suggestion for "Today in History", post it [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Today in History|here]]. Your article will be posted on the Main Page on the corresponding day. The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on Conservapedia Day 2008.

===Wanted Pages===
This is a very important part of this project. Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted page]] for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page|Wanted Pages]])====
The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on [[Conservapedia Day]] 2008.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 Contributors
! Number of pages ''as of 11/03/08''
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>133</center>
|-
| [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
| <center>124</center>
|}

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion]]
[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Talk:MiG-21

2008-11-18T16:25:58Z

Mikek: /* Note to Ed */ new section

GFDL text from Wikipedia:
----
The initial letter of the name indicated the use of that equipment.
===Missiles===
* '''A''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for air-to-air missiles|air-to-air missile]]s.
* '''K''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for air-to-surface missiles|air-to-surface missile]]s (from the Russian Kh designation).
* '''G''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for surface-to-air missiles|surface-to-air missile]]s, SAM (or Ground-to-air), including ship- and submarine-launched.
* '''S''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for surface-to-surface missiles|surface-to-surface missile]]s, including ship- and submarine-launched. (most famously the SS-1 “[[Scud]]”).
** from this [[List of NATO reporting names for anti-tank missiles|Anti-tank missiles]] (also S).

===Aircraft===
* '''F''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for fighters|fighter aircraft]] , also later ground attack aircraft.
* '''B''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for bombers|bomber aircraft]].
* '''C''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for transport aircraft|cargo aircraft]] and airliners.
* '''H''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for helicopters|helicopters]].
* '''M''' — [[List of NATO reporting names for miscellaneous aircraft|Miscellaneous]]; [[Trainer
----
Note: the above cannot be incorporated freely, due to licensing conflicts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Note to Ed ==

I fixed a sentence that got messed up grammatically by a previous change, I'm not sure if my fix kept the meaning that you intended. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

MiG-21

2008-11-18T16:22:12Z

Mikek: bad sentence

The '''Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21''' is a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]-built fighter-interceptor and one of the most widely exported aircraft in the world. Unofficially referred to as the "Fishbed" by [[NATO]], it was first flown in 1955. With the exception of the Falklands War, the MiG-21 has seen use in just about every aerial conflict since it was introduced.

[[Image:MiG-21.jpg|thumb|right|400 px|A MiG-21.]]

==Design==

The "Fishbed" has a long and narrow body fitted with two delta wings and a single [[afterburner|afterburning]] [[turbojet]] fitted with single exhaust. It is fitted with a bubble canopy. The MiG-21 is capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2.

The Fishbed has come out in fifteen different versions, the most advanced of which is the MiG-21bis. Around 3000 MiG-21 variants still serve in air forces around the world.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-21.htm MiG-21 at GlobalSecurity.org]</ref>

The MiG-21 has four underwing pylons for stores, and most variants carry a 23 mm cannon under the fuselage. The MiG-21bis can carry the relatively advanced AA-8 Aphid [[air-to-air missile]].

==China==

[[China]] builds the MiG-21 under the name of the J-7. Production of the J-7 was licensed by the Soviet Union in 1961. The aircraft will be replaced by the J-8.

==Operational History==
===Vietnam War===
The MiG-21 entered operational service with [[North Vietnam]] in early 1966, a year after the MiG-17, but over the course of the war shot down over twice as many American aircraft (46) as its subsonic companion. Like the MiG-17, the MiG-21 was more maneuverable than the American fighters it faced, but had relatively poor [[avionics]] (although they were an improvement over the MiG-17’s). Thirteen MiG-21 pilots became aces (according to Vietnamese records), and the three top-scoring North Vietnamese aces were Fishbed drivers. The Vietnamese top gun was Nguyen Van Coc, with nine confirmed victories, including three [[F-105 Thunderchief]]s and three [[F-4 Phantom]]s.<ref>[http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html North Vietnamese Aces]</ref>

The MiGs typically used hit-and-run tactics, rushing in at high speed, firing their missiles, and escaping before the American escorts could respond. Even when the missiles failed to score, the bombers often had to jettison their payloads to evade the attacks, making the sorties pointless. In Operation Bolo, on January 2, 1967, USAF Phantoms downed seven North Vietnamese Fishbeds, approximately a third of their MiG-21 force, dealing them a serious blow. The remaining MiG-21s were temporarily withdrawn to wait for replacements and revise tactics. On April 30 of that year, the MiG-21s returned to the fight in a big way, downing three, possibly four, F-105 Thunderchiefs for no loss. One of the MiG pilots was Nguyen Van Coc, who scored his first kill in this action. Among the American pilots lost was [[Medal of Honor]] winner [[Leo Thorsness|Leo K. Thorsness]], who spent the rest of the war as a POW.

When [[Operation Rolling Thunder]] ended, the air war entered a lull. By the time bombing of the North resumed two years later, the Vietnamese People’s Air Force had re-equipped many of its [[MiG-17]] units with MiG-21s, and 1972 saw 24 American planes lost to North Vietnamese Fishbeds. Most of the downed planes were Phantoms, but MiG-21 pilots also claimed to shot down two [[B-52]]s during Operation Linebacker II. For their part, the Americans had improved their tactics, revised their training, and removed many of the restrictions that had handicapped them in Operation Rolling Thunder, and MiG losses were high. American fighter pilots downed over 45 MiG-21s in 1972.<ref>''MiG-21 Units of the Vietnam War'', by Istvan Toperczer, Osprey Publishing, 2001</ref>

Today, [[Vietnam]] still operates MiG-21s<ref>[http://vndefence.wordpress.com/vietnam-peoples-air-force/ Vietnam People’s Air Force]</ref>

===Arab Israeli conflicts===
The MiG-21 was the premier air superiority fighter in the Arab air forces from the mid-60s to the early 80s, and was prominent in the [[Six Day War]], the War of Attrition, the [[Yom Kippur War]], and the 1982 fighting in Lebanon. The MiG-21 was equal to the most advanced [[Israel]]i fighter of the time, the Mirage III, and Israeli intelligence placed a high priority on obtaining one for analysis. On August 12, 1966, a Christian [[Iraq]]i pilot flew his MiG-21F to Israel in a defection arranged by a Mossad agent. The MiG was used in dis-similar combat training with Israeli Mirages, allowing the pilots to learn about the Soviet plane’s strengths and weaknesses. This training proved its worth on April 7, 1967, during fighting between Syrian and Israeli forces in the Golan Heights. An air battle developed between Israeli fighters and twelve Syrian MiG-21s, resulting in six MiGs downed for no loss to the Israelis.<ref>[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/migtheft.html Stealing a Soviet MiG]</ref>

In the [[Six Day War]], the initial strikes destroyed most of Egypt’s MiGs on the ground, and the few that were able to get airborne were outnumbered and usually outflown. Six MiG-21s were lost in aerial combat on the first day, and they downed only one aircraft in return, an Israeli Mirage. The Syrian Air Force had the advantage of warning, since attacks on Syrian airfields weren’t scheduled to take place until the afternoon, and the war on the eastern front began when Syrian MiG-17s struck the oil refinery at [[Haifa]] at around 1100 hours, with [[MiG-19]]s and MiG-21s as escorts. The strike had only limited success, and two Frescoes were downed by ground fire. In spite of a combat air patrol over Syrian airfields, the Israeli strikes went ahead as scheduled and destroyed over half the Syrian Air Force’s planes. With the IAF in almost complete control of the air, Egyptian and Syrian MiGs were used in mainly ineffectual hit-and-run attacks for the rest of the war.<ref name="Arab">''Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat'', by David Nicolle and Tom Cooper, Osprey Publishing, 2004</ref>

===Egyptian-Libyan Conflict===
After peace with Israel, Egypt's relations with some of its fellow Arab states detoriarated, and Egyptian MiG-21s were called into action again in 1977 during the brief Egyptian-Libyan War, when they escorted strikes on [[Libya]]n army outposts, radar stations, and air bases. The Egyptian campaign was reasonably successful, but even after the ceasefire, there were occasional skirmishes. In 1979, two Libyan MiG-23s engaged two Egyptian Fishbeds which had been modified to carry American Sidewinder missiles. In a turning battle, in which the more maneuverable MiG-21 had the advantage, one Flogger was shot down by Egyptian pilot and veteran Major Sal Mohammad.<ref>[http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_353.shtml Libya & Egypt, 1971-1979]</ref>

===Iran-Iraq War===
MiG-21s still formed the lion’s share of Iraqi fighter strength at the start of [[Iran-Iraq War|the war]], but they were outclassed by the planes of the [[Iran]]ian Air Force, especially the [[F-14 Tomcat]], which was a full generation ahead of the MiG. The poor avionics of the MiG meant that pilots were often not aware of the enemy’s presence until the first plane was hit. Fishbed pilots claimed some successes, particularly against the less sophisticated F-5s flown by some Iranian units, but the engagement on September 25, 1980, in which twelve MiGs intercepted a force of Phantoms returning from a bombing raid, was more typical. Five MiGs were lost, and only two Phantoms even suffered damage. Not only were the Iranian planes usually better equipped, the Iranian pilots had generally better training, some of them having been to programs in America or Israel.

In early 1981, with French help, the Iraqis revised their tactics and modified their Fishbeds to carry French-built Matra heat-seeking missiles (The Soviet-built Atolls that the MiGs usually carried were notoriously unreliable). In April, the Iraqis began an aggressive air campaign with MiG-23s and the updated MiG-21s. Within a week, the MiGs had downed five Iranian aircraft, including two Phantoms, for the loss of one Fishbed. The next week resulted in four more kills for one MiG lost, and the Iraqis had achieved local air superiority, much to the surprise of the Iranian Air Force high command. The situation changed, however, when Iran redeployed F-14s to the area. Iran’s Tomcats were vastly superior to the improved MiGs, and the IrAF was forced back on the defensive.

The Soviets were slow in replacing Iraqi losses, so Iraq turned to China and its J-7 fighter, which was very basic, but cheap, and allowed the Iraqi Air Force to build back its strength. In response, Russia began supplying the superior MiG-21bis. However, even the best Fishbeds were not going win control of the sky back from Iran, and the MiG-21 was edged out by more advanced planes from Russia and France, although it continued to play a role through the end of the war.<ref name="Arab"/>

===Desert Storm===
By the time of the [[Gulf War]], MiG-21s still made up a significant portion of the Iraqi Air Force, and were involved in at least one serious attempt to counter the American air strikes. On January 17, 1991, the first day of the war, Fishbeds went aloft to stop a strike by US Navy planes. Four MiGs acted as decoys, successfully drawing the attention of the escorting F-14s, while two others attempted to hit the strike planes. Unfortunately for them, they ran into a section of US Navy [[F/A-18 Hornet|Hornets]], and both were shot down. The Hornet pilots hadn’t even jettisoned their bombs for the engagement, and went on to complete their part of the attack mission.<ref name="Arab"/>

After the first days, resistance by the IrAF markedly decreased. On February 6, 1991, F-15 pilot Captain Thomas Dietz of the 53rd Fighter Squadron shot down two MiG-21s that were trying to escape to Iran.<ref>''F-15C Eagle Units in Combat'', by Steve Davies, Osprey Publishing, 2005</ref>

===Afghanistan===
Soviet and Afghan MiG-21s saw service in the Soviet invasion of [[Afghanistan]], mainly in the fighter-bomber role. Several were lost to ground fire, and at least one Afghan pilot defected with his plane to [[Pakistan]].<ref>''The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare'', ed. by Chris Bishop, Aerospace Publishing, 2001</ref> Many Fishbeds survived the fall of the Soviet-backed government, but by the time the [[Taliban]] came to power in 1996, only a few were still operational due to shortage of spare parts. It is unknown if any survived the American airstrikes of 2001.<ref>[http://www.mig-21.de/english/afghanistan.htm MiG-21.de]</ref>

===The Horn of Africa===
In 1977, war broke out between [[Somalia]] and [[Ethiopia]] over the Ethiopian province of Ogaden. Somalia had been a Soviet client for many years, so MiG-21s formed the backbone of its air force. Partly due to lack of ground-based radar support, Somali Fishbeds had a poor record during the war, with most of them being shot down by ground fire and Ethiopian F-5s. Although the Ethiopian government denied it, it is widely believed that the Ethiopian planes were flown by Israeli pilots (who had a wealth of experience in downing MiG-21s).<ref>[http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_188.shtml Ogaden War, 1977-1978]</ref>

==MiG-21 in Media==
MiG-21s were a frequent and dangerous adversary of the pilots of the [[anime]] ''Area 88'', operating mainly in the air superiority role.
==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Aircraft]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]

Famous paintings

2008-11-18T13:37:12Z

Mikek: Redirect

#Redirect[[World famous paintings]]

Homosexuals and the Holocaust

2008-11-12T16:34:25Z

Mikek: Talk page stats differentiate between camps and prisons

[[Gay rights]] activists claim that the Nazis targeted homosexuals during the [[holocaust]] in a way comparable to the [[Jewish]] population. In fact, homosexuals were not exterminated as Jews were.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. . . [but] the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity".<ref name=USHMM>
[http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals 1933-1945]</ref>

During Germany's [[Third Reich]], about 5,000 to 15,000 [[homosexual]] men were interned in [[concentration camps]], out of an estimated population of one million.

==Notes==
<references />

Talk:Homosexuals and the Holocaust

2008-11-12T15:45:59Z

Mikek: Problem with looking at the numbers

JohnD wrote: It is widely accepted that homosexuals were targeted during the holocuast. The second sentance even admitts there were gay people in the camp, and that they indentified as such.

:The relevant question is whether they were targeted. A tangentially related question is what the 0.1% figure says about the 10% claim of Kinsey and other advocates of perversion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:33, 12 November 2008 (EST)--
:: I've added a reference as per your request.
:But not a good one. You gotta do the math. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

*The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a "degeneracy" that threatened the "disciplined masculinity" of Germany. Denounced as "antisocial parasites" and as "enemies of the state," more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps

1,000,000 estimated homosexual men
10,000 homosexual men in concentration camps

#That's a 1% figure. Compare that to 85% of all Jews.
#Other sources say they were not "rounded up" but caught having public sex.

Please respond to this critique making further article edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: I'm not questioning the numbers. The way you have written the original statement suggests that only gay activists claim that homosexual were targeted during the holocaust. That isn't true. I'm interested to see you've labelled the United States holocaust museum as gay activists.

For another reference see [http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/Homosexuality_and_the_Holocaust.htm] and references there in.

::: One thing to consider is that it's far more difficult to identify homosexuals than Jews, especially using the methods that the Nazis did. When you have synagogues with membership lists, exclusively Jewish communities, and people who, a few years before, had no reason to hide their identity, it's a lot easier to pick them out. The majority of gay people are private about their life style, you can't make a definitive definition of who's gay by tracking them through their ancestors, and, while they do (I can't speak for whether they did in the WWII era) have some gathering places and communities that are frequented by many gay people, there aren't many, and there probably were far fewer at the time, places that have lists that identify gay people. That makes it a little difficult to compare the percentages of Jews that were targetted to the percentages of gays. [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Rahm Emanuel

2008-11-07T17:08:41Z

Mikek: Rewording 1st sentence

'''Rahm Emanuel''' (b. 1959) is a Democrat who has represented [[Illinois]]' 5th Congressional District in the House of Representatives since 2003. Prior to his election to Congress, he had worked in the Clinton White House from 1993-1998, first serving as Assistant to the President for Political Affairs, and then Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy. He will be US President-elect [[Barack Obama]]'s Chief of Staff starting in January, 2009.

Representative Emanuel is [[Jewish]]. He and his wife Ann have three children:, Zacharias, Ilana, and Leah. Emanual has a bachelor's degree from [[Sarah Lawrence College]] (1981), and a master's degree in speech and communication from [[Northwestern University]] (1985). Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin M. Emanuel, was born in [[Jerusalem]].

Talk:Rahm Emanuel

2008-11-07T16:07:30Z

Mikek:

DavidA -- I hope you don't mind my edit to your addition about Emanuel's father. I don't have a cite for the Irgun connection. Do you? -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 18:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:He's been blocked. I can't find any... reliable sources for his father's "terrorist" connections, but I found a lot of mentions of it on the internet. All of those sources seemed to get their information from another website, which itself never explained how it knew his father was a terrorist. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In that case, I'd vote for deleting the Irgun part. -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 20:35, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::Source - [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034855.html]. The question remains, have you guys learned your lesson about the effectiveness of trying to associate current politicians with people associated with events from 60 years ago, considering that he was finished with that by the time he was about 21, and he's been a pediatrician since? And what about the fact that this point runs pretty counter to the whole "Obama is a Muslim and will abandon Israel" campaign? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:00, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Rahm Emanuel

2008-11-07T16:00:46Z

Mikek: Source

DavidA -- I hope you don't mind my edit to your addition about Emanuel's father. I don't have a cite for the Irgun connection. Do you? -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 18:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:He's been blocked. I can't find any... reliable sources for his father's "terrorist" connections, but I found a lot of mentions of it on the internet. All of those sources seemed to get their information from another website, which itself never explained how it knew his father was a terrorist. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In that case, I'd vote for deleting the Irgun part. -- [[User:Martib|Martib]] 20:35, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034855.html - the question remains, have you guys learned your lesson about the effectiveness of trying to associate current politicians with people associated with events from 60 years ago? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:00, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Finland

2008-11-07T15:06:33Z

Mikek: Undo revision 551301 by Palin666 (Talk)

{{Country
|name =''Suomi'' ''Finland''
|map =Finland rel96.jpg
|flag =Flag of Finland.png
|arms =Arms of Finland.png
|capital =Helsinki
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Finnish, Swedish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Tarja Halonen
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Matti Vanhanen
|pm-raw =
|area =130,558 sq mi
|pop =5,296,128 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$193.491 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$40,197 (2005)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Republic of Finland''' (''Suomi'' or ''Suomen tasavalta'' in Finnish, ''Republiken Finland'' in Swedish) is a country of northern [[Europe]] known for its largely [[social democracy|social democratic]] economic system. The Finnish [[conservative]] party, the [[National Coalition]] led by [[Jyrki Katainen]], is its principal conservative organization.

The state capital is [[Helsinki]] and the principal exports are machines, electronics (for example cellphones) and forestry products. [[Finnish]] is the principal language spoken, a [[Finno-Ugric]] language. Like many nations that do international business, or have a strong tourist trade, many Finns speak English to facilitate communication with other countries. The second official language is Swedish, which has the same status as Finnish in the country. Finland is known as "the land of lakes".

==Geography==
The area of Finland is approximately 338 000 square kilometers, with a north-south axis of 890 kilometers. Most of the landscape is covered with lakes, glaciers and forests. Finland is often called the "Land of Thousands of Lakes", which is true, because the number of lakes in the country exceeds 188 000, of which about 56 000 have an area of one hectare or more. In the sea there are more than 3 000 islands. In the North there are many glaciers, the most famous of which is [[Saana]]. Cultivated land and habitation only account for 17% of the land area, rest being mainly [[Norway spruce]] forests.

Finland is bound by [[Sweden]] in the Northwest, [[Norway]] in the North, [[Russia]] in the East, the [[Gulf of Finland]] in the South and the [[Gulf of Bothnia]] in the West.

==People==
*Population (September 2007): 5.29 million.
*Population growth rate (2006): 0.4%.
*Ethnic groups: Finns, Swedes, Lapps, Sami, Roma, Tatars.
*Religions: Lutheran 82.5%, Orthodox 1.1%.
*Languages: Finnish 91.5%, Swedish 5.5% (both official); small Lapp- (0.03%) and Russian-speaking (0.8%) minorities.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--almost 100%. Literacy--almost 100%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--2.8/1,000 (2006). Life expectancy--males 75.8 yrs., females 82.8 yrs.
*Work force (2.65 million; of which 2.44 million are employed): Public services--32.8%; industry--19%; commerce--15.6%; finance, insurance, and business services--13.8%; agriculture and forestry--4.7%; transport and communications--7.4%; construction--6.7%.

===Culture===
Finnish people (Finns) are known for their love of nature. Nature is prominent in the works of Finnish artists, such as [[Jean Sibelius]], [[Aki Kaurismäki]], [[Alvar Aalto]].

The great masters of Finnish literature include [[Mika Waltari]], [[Väinö Linna]], [[Johan Ludvig Runeberg]]. Finland is a bi-lingual country and has produced its literary heritage in both Finnish and Swedish. The beloved Moomintrolls were created by the writer and graphic artist Tove Jansson.

Another important facet of traditional Finnish culture is the love of the Finnish [[sauna]].
<div style="font-size: 80%">
{|class="wikitable" align=right border=1 style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 10pt; margin-right: 1pt"
!colspan=4|Population of Finland, 1750–2000<ref>{{cite book | last=Aunesluoma | first=Juhana | coauthors=Heikkonen, Esko; Ojakoski, Matti | title=Lukiolaisen yhteiskuntatieto | language=Finnish | publisher=[[SanomaWSOY|WSOY]] | date=2006}}</ref>
|-
!Year!!Population!!Year!!Population
|-
||1750||align=right|421,000||1880||align=right|2,060,800
|-
||1760||align=right|491,000||1890||align=right|2,380,100
|-
||1770||align=right|561,000||1900||align=right|2,655,900
|-
||1780||align=right|663,000||1910||align=right|2,943,400
|-
||1790||align=right|705,600||1920||align=right|3,147,600
|-
||1800||align=right|832,700||1930||align=right|3,462,700
|-
||1810||align=right|863,300||1940||align=right|3,695,617
|-
||1820||align=right|1,177,500||1950||align=right|4,029,803
|-
||1830||align=right|1,372,100||1960||align=right|4,446,222
|-
||1840||align=right|1,445,600||1970||align=right|4,598,336
|-
||1850||align=right|1,636,900||1980||align=right|4,787,778
|-
||1860||align=right|1,746,700||1990||align=right|4,998,478
|-
||1870||align=right|1,768,800||2000||align=right|5,181,000
|}
</div>

===Population===
Finland currently numbers 5,302,778 inhabitants and has an average population density of 17 inhabitants per square kilometer. This makes it, after Norway and Iceland, the most sparsely populated country in Europe. Finland's population has always been concentrated in the southern parts of the country, a phenomenon even more pronounced after 20th century urbanization.

The share of foreign citizens in Finland is 2.5 percent being among the lowest of the European Union countries. Most of them are from Russia, Estonia and Sweden.

===Religion===
Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (81.7 percent). With approximately 4.6 million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world. A minority belong to the Finnish Orthodox Church (1.1 percent; see Eastern Orthodox Church). Other Protestantism denominations and the Roman Catholic Church in Finland are significantly.

The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles such as in state ceremonies and schools. A university degree in theology is compulsory for Lutheran priests. Representatives at Lutheran Church assemblies are selected in church elections every four years.

The Finnish are highly religious people nearing but not surpassing the United States of America in religiosity considering the populations of these two countries.

====President and cabinet====
Elected for a 6-year term, the president:
*Handles foreign policy, except for certain international agreements and decisions of peace or war, which must be submitted to parliament, and EU relations, which are handled by the prime minister;
*Is commander in chief of the armed forces and has wide decree and appointive powers;
*May initiate legislation, block legislation by pocket veto, and call extraordinary parliamentary sessions; and
*Appoints the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet (Council of State). The Council of State is made up of the prime minister and ministers for the various departments of the central government as well as an ex officio member, the Chancellor of Justice. Ministers are not obliged to be members of the Eduskunta and need not be formally identified with any political party.
The president may, upon proposal of the prime minister and after having heard the parliamentary groups, order parliament to be dissolved, and a new election held.

====Parliament====
Constitutionally, the 200-member, unicameral Eduskunta is the supreme authority in Finland. It may alter the constitution, bring about the resignation of the Council of State, and override presidential vetoes; its acts are not subject to judicial review. Legislation may be initiated by the president, the Council of State, or one of the Eduskunta members.

The Eduskunta is elected on the basis of proportional representation. All persons 18 or older, except military personnel on active duty and a few high judicial officials, are eligible for election. The regular parliamentary term is 4 years; however, the president may dissolve the Eduskunta and order new elections at the request of the prime minister and after consulting the speaker of parliament.

====Judicial system====
The judicial system is divided between courts with regular civil and criminal jurisdiction and special courts with responsibility for litigation between the public and the administrative organs of the state. Finnish law is codified. Although there is no writ of habeas corpus or bail, the maximum period of pretrial detention has been reduced to 4 days. The Finnish court system consists of local courts, regional appellate courts, a Supreme Court, and a Supreme Administrative Court.

====Administrative divisions====
Finland consists of five provinces and the self-ruled province of the Aland Islands. Below the provincial level, the country is divided into cities, townships, and communes administered by municipal and communal councils elected by proportional representation once every 4 years. At the provincial level, the five mainland provinces are administered by provincial boards composed of civil servants, each headed by a governor. The boards are responsible to the Ministry of the Interior and play a supervisory and coordinating role within the provinces.

The island province of Aland is located near the 60th parallel between Sweden and Finland. It enjoys local autonomy and demilitarized status by virtue of an international convention of 1921, implemented most recently by the Act on Aland Self-Government of 1951. The islands are further distinguished by the fact that they are entirely Swedish-speaking. Government is vested in the provincial council, which consists of 30 delegates elected directly by Aland's citizens.

====Military====
Finland's defense forces consist of 35,000 persons in uniform (26,000 army; 5,000 navy; and 4,000 air force). The country's defense budget equals about 1.3% of GDP. There is universal male conscription under which all men serve from six to 12 months. As of 1995, women were permitted to serve as volunteers. A reserve force ensures that Finland can field 490,000 trained military personnel in case of need.

====Political parties====
Finland's proportional representation system encourages a multitude of political parties and has resulted in many coalition governments. Political activity by communists was legalized in 1944, and although four major parties have dominated the postwar political arena, none now has a majority position. In elections held in 2007, the Center Party (Keskusta), traditionally representing rural interests, kept its position as the biggest party. The then-opposition Conservative Party, however, came away as the biggest winner, gaining 10 seats and becoming the second-largest political party in the country. The Center then formed a four-party governing coalition with the Conservatives and the Swedish People's Party and the Greens. The Social Democratic Party (SDP) suffered a defeat in these elections and fell to the third position among the big parties. Of the other parties, the True Finns, the Green League, and the Swedish People’s Party were able to gain seats in parliament. The Conservative Party received the portfolios of foreign minister, finance minister, and defense minister, among others, and became an important player after a long interval.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Tarja Halonen
*Prime Minister--Matti Vanhanen
*Foreign Minister--Ilkka Kanerva
*Ambassador to the United States--Pekka Lintu
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Kirsti Lintonen

===Foreign Relations===
Finland's basic foreign policy goal from the end of the Continuation War with the U.S.S.R. in 1944 until 1991 was to avoid great-power conflicts and to build mutual confidence with the Soviet Union. Although the country was culturally, socially, and politically Western, Finns realized they must live in peace with the U.S.S.R. and take no action that might be interpreted as a security threat. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened up dramatic new possibilities for Finland and has resulted in the Finns actively seeking greater participation in Western political and economic structures. Finland joined the European Union in 1995.

====Previous relations with the Soviet Union, and today with Russia====
The principal architect of the post-1944 foreign policy of neutrality was J.K. Paasikivi, who was President from 1946 to 1956. Urho Kekkonen, President from 1956 until 1981, further developed this policy, stressing that Finland should be an active rather than a passive neutral. This policy is now popularly known as the "Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line."

Finland and the U.S.S.R. signed a peace treaty at Paris in February 1947 limiting the size of Finland's defense forces and providing for the cession to the Soviet Union of the Petsamo area on the Arctic coast, the Karelian Isthmus in southeastern Finland, and other territory along the former eastern border. Another provision, terminated in 1956, leased the Porkkala area near Helsinki to the U.S.S.R. for use as a naval base and gave free access to this area across Finnish territory.

The 1947 treaty also called for Finland to pay to the Soviet Union reparations of 300 million gold dollars (amounting to an estimated $570 million in 1952, the year the payments ended). Although an ally of the Soviet Union in World War II, the United States was not a signatory to this treaty because it had not been at war with Finland.

In April 1948, Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. Under this mutual assistance pact, Finland was obligated--with the aid of the Soviet Union, if necessary--to resist armed attacks by Germany or its allies against Finland or against the U.S.S.R. through Finland. At the same time, the agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts. This agreement was renewed for 20 years in 1955, in 1970, and again in 1983 to the year 2003, although the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the agreement's abrogation.

The Finns responded cautiously in 1990-91 to the decline of Soviet power and the U.S.S.R.'s subsequent dissolution. They unilaterally abrogated restrictions imposed by the 1947 and 1948 treaties, joined in voicing Nordic concern over the coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and gave increasing unofficial encouragement to Baltic independence.

At the same time, by replacing the Soviet-Finnish mutual assistance pact with treaties on general cooperation and trade, Finns put themselves on an equal footing while retaining a friendly bilateral relationship. Finland now is boosting cross-border commercial ties and touting its potential as a commercial gateway to Russia. It has reassured Russia that it will not raise claims for Finnish territory seized by the U.S.S.R. and continues to reaffirm the importance of good bilateral relations.

====Multilateral Relations====
Finnish foreign policy emphasizes its participation in multilateral organizations. Finland joined the United Nations in 1955 and the EU in 1995. As noted, the country also is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace as well as a member in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. As a NATO partner, Finland had 100 troops in Afghanistan as of September 2007.

Finland is well represented in the UN civil service in proportion to its population and belongs to several of its specialized and related agencies. Finnish troops have participated in UN peacekeeping activities since 1956, and the Finns continue to be one of the largest per capita contributors of peacekeepers in the world. Finland is an active participant in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and in early 1995 assumed the co-chairmanship of the OSCE's Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Cooperation with the other Scandinavian countries also is important to Finland, and it has been a member of the Nordic Council since 1955. Under the council's auspices, the Nordic countries have created a common labor market and have abolished immigration controls among themselves. The council also serves to coordinate social and cultural policies of the participating countries and has promoted increased cooperation in many fields.

In addition to the organizations already mentioned, Finland became a member of the following organizations: Bank for International Settlements, 1930; International Monetary Fund, 1948; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1948; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1950; International Finance Corporation, 1956; International Development Association, 1960; European Free Trade Association, 1961; Asian Development Bank, 1966; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969; Inter-American Development Bank, 1977; African Development Bank, 1982; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 1988; the Council of Europe, 1989; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1991; World Trade Organization, 1995; and INTELSAT, 1999. Finland entered Stage Three of EMU (the European Monetary Union) in 1999. All the Nordic countries, including Finland, joined the Schengen area in March 2001.

==Economy==
Finland has an industrial economy based on abundant forest resources, capital investments, and high technology.

The Finnish economy has made enormous strides since the severe recession of the early 1990s. Finland successfully joined the euro zone and has outperformed euro-area partners in terms of economic growth and public finance. In the last few years, the Finnish economy has performed reasonably well. Total output was 5% higher in 2006 than in 2005, but economic activity leveled off in the latter half of the year. GDP is predicted to grow by 4.4% in 2007, while 2008 is likely to show a slower rate of growth, estimated at 3.3%. Despite the current favorable outlook, there is a degree of uncertainty in the Finnish economy caused by the large fluctuations in electronics industry production, together with resource constraints. Cost and price pressures have increased, and there is a threat of industry’s price competitiveness starting to weaken.

Unemployment decreased significantly from 1994 to 7.7% in 2006 and is expected to drop to 6.7% in 2007. A relatively inflexible labor market and high employer-paid social security taxes hamper growth in employment. Labor bottlenecks are becoming more common in certain sectors, and this will increasingly restrict growth in output in the future. The main constraint to medium-term economic growth will be the drop in the population of working age once the post-war baby boomers reach retirement age.

Exports of goods and services contribute 32% of Finland's GDP. Metals and engineering (including electronics) and timber (including pulp and paper) are Finland's main industries. The United States is Finland's third most important trading partner outside of Europe. With a 3.8% share of imports in 2006, the United States was Finland's seventh-largest supplier. The total value of U.S. exports to Finland in 2006 was $2.6 billion. Major exports from the United States to Finland continue to be machinery, telecommunications equipment and parts, aircraft and aircraft parts, computers, peripherals and software, electronic components, chemicals, medical equipment, and some agricultural products. The primary competition for American companies comes from Russia, Germany, Sweden, and China. The main export items from Finland to the United States are electronics, machinery, ships and boats, paper and paperboard, refined petroleum products, telecommunications equipment and parts. In 2006, the United States was Finland's fourth-largest customer after Germany (11.3%), Sweden (10.5%), and Russia (10.1%), with an export share of 6.5%, or $5 billion. However, trade is only part of the totality: the 10 biggest Finnish companies in the United States have a combined turnover that is three times the value of Finland's total exports to the United States. About 2.3% of the Finnish GDP comes from exports to the United States.

Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imported raw materials, energy, and some components for its manufactured products. Farms tend to be small, but farmers own sizable timber stands that are harvested for supplementary income in winter. The country's main agricultural products are dairy, meat, and grains. Finland's EU accession has accelerated the process of restructuring and downsizing of this sector.
*GDP: $210.8 billion (EUR 167.9 billion).
*GDP growth rate: 5%.
*Per capita income: $40,036 (EUR 31,886).
*Inflation rate: 1.6% (2006 average); 2.6% (September 2007).
*Natural resources: Forests, minerals (copper, zinc, iron), farmland.
*Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (2.9% of GDP): Products--meat (pork and beef), grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats), dairy products, potatoes, rapeseed.
*Industry (30.1% of GDP): Types--metal (including electronics and electrical equipment) and engineering, forest products, chemicals, shipbuilding, foodstuffs, textiles.
*Trade: Exports--$77.08 billion. Major markets--EU 56.9%, Russia 10.1%, U.S. 6.5%, China 3.2%. Imports--$68.9 billion. Major suppliers--EU 55.3%, Russia 14.1%, China 7.5%, U.S. 3.8%.

==History==
The origins of the Finnish people are still a matter of conjecture, although many scholars argue that their original home was in what is now west-central [[Siberia]]. The Finns arrived in their present territory thousands of years ago, pushing the indigenous Lapps into the more remote northern regions. Finnish and Lappish--the language of Finland's small Lapp minority--both are Finno-Ugric languages and are in the Uralic rather than the Indo-European family.

Finland's nearly 700-year association with the Kingdom of [[Sweden]] began in 1154 with the introduction of Christianity by Sweden's King Eric. During the ensuing centuries, Finland played an important role in the political life of the Swedish-Finnish realm, and Finnish soldiers often predominated in Swedish armies. Finns also formed a significant proportion of the first "Swedish" settlers in 17th-century America.

Following Finland's incorporation into Sweden in the 12th century, Swedish became the dominant language, although Finnish recovered its predominance after a 19th-century resurgence of Finnish nationalism. Publication in 1835 of the Finnish national epic, The Kalevala--a collection of traditional myths and legends--first stirred the nationalism that later led to Finland's independence from Russia.

In 1809, Finland was conquered by the armies of Czar Alexander I and thereafter remained an autonomous grand duchy connected with the Russian Empire until the end of 1917. On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence. In 1918, the country experienced a brief but bitter civil war that colored domestic politics for many years. During [[World War II]], Finland fought the [[Soviet Union]] twice--in the [[Winter War]] of 1939-40 and again in the [[Continuation War]] of 1941-44. This was followed by the [[Lapland War]] of 1944-45, when Finland fought against the Germans as they withdrew their forces from northern Finland.

During the Continuation War (1941-1944) Finland was a co-belligerent with [[Germany]]. However, Finnish Jews were not persecuted. Of the approximately 500 Jewish refugees who arrived in Finland, eight were handed over to the Germans, for which Finland submitted an official apology in 2000.<ref>[http://www.uta.fi/~tuulikki.vuonokari/fin-1.html Jews in Finland During World War II]</ref> Also during the war, approximately 2,600 Soviet prisoners of war were exchanged for 2,100 Finnish prisoners of war from Germany. In 2003, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted an official request for a full-scale investigation by the Finnish authorities of the prisoner exchange. It was established there were about 70 Jews among the extradited prisoners but none was extradited as a result of ethnic background or religious belief.

Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. as well as territorial concessions by Finland; both have been abrogated by Finland since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union.

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Copyright_Details_%28US_Government%29 Copyright Details]

[[Category:Finland]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Nordic Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Finland

2008-11-07T15:05:53Z

Mikek: Undo revision 551302 by Jim256 (Talk)

{{Country
|name =''Suomi'' ''Finland''
|map =Finland rel96.jpg
|flag =Flag of Finland.png
|arms =Arms of Finland.png
|capital =Helsinki
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Finnish, Swedish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Tarja Halonen
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Matti Vanhanen
|pm-raw =
|area =130,558 sq mi
|pop =5,296,128 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$193.491 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$40,197 (2005)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Republic of Finland''' (''Suomi'' or ''Suomen tasavalta'' in Finnish, ''Republiken Finland'' in Swedish) is a country of northern [[Europe]] known for its largely [[social democracy|social democratic]] economic system. The Finnish [[conservative]] party, the [[National Coalition]] led by [[Jyrki Katainen]], is its principal conservative organization.

The state capital is [[Helsinki]] and the principal exports are machines, electronics (for example cellphones) and forestry products. [[Finnish]] is the principal language spoken, a [[Finno-Ugric]] language. Like many nations that do international business, or have a strong tourist trade, many Finns speak English to facilitate communication with other countries. The second official language is Swedish, which has the same status as Finnish in the country. Finland is known as "the land of lakes".

==Geography==
The area of Finland is approximately 338 000 square kilometers, with a north-south axis of 890 kilometers. Most of the landscape is covered with lakes, glaciers and forests. Finland is often called the "Land of Thousands of Lakes", which is true, because the number of lakes in the country exceeds 188 000, of which about 56 000 have an area of one hectare or more. In the sea there are more than 3 000 islands. In the North there are many glaciers, the most famous of which is [[Saana]]. Cultivated land and habitation only account for 17% of the land area, rest being mainly [[Norway spruce]] forests.

Finland is bound by [[Sweden]] in the Northwest, [[Norway]] in the North, [[Russia]] in the East, the [[Gulf of Finland]] in the South and the [[Gulf of Bothnia]] in the West.

==People==
*Population (September 2007): o.
*Population growth rate (2006): 0%.
*Ethnic groups: none.
*Religions: no.
*Languages: no.
*Education: no.
*Health: none.
*Work force: none

there are no people at all in finland. It is populated soley by ducks.
===Culture===
Finnish people (Finns) are known for their love of nature. Nature is prominent in the works of Finnish artists, such as [[Jean Sibelius]], [[Aki Kaurismäki]], [[Alvar Aalto]].

The great masters of Finnish literature include [[Mika Waltari]], [[Väinö Linna]], [[Johan Ludvig Runeberg]]. Finland is a bi-lingual country and has produced its literary heritage in both Finnish and Swedish. The beloved Moomintrolls were created by the writer and graphic artist Tove Jansson.

Another important facet of traditional Finnish culture is the love of the Finnish [[sauna]].
<div style="font-size: 80%">
{|class="wikitable" align=right border=1 style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 10pt; margin-right: 1pt"
!colspan=4|Population of Finland, 1750–2000<ref>{{cite book | last=Aunesluoma | first=Juhana | coauthors=Heikkonen, Esko; Ojakoski, Matti | title=Lukiolaisen yhteiskuntatieto | language=Finnish | publisher=[[SanomaWSOY|WSOY]] | date=2006}}</ref>
|-
!Year!!Population!!Year!!Population
|-
||1750||align=right|421,000||1880||align=right|2,060,800
|-
||1760||align=right|491,000||1890||align=right|2,380,100
|-
||1770||align=right|561,000||1900||align=right|2,655,900
|-
||1780||align=right|663,000||1910||align=right|2,943,400
|-
||1790||align=right|705,600||1920||align=right|3,147,600
|-
||1800||align=right|832,700||1930||align=right|3,462,700
|-
||1810||align=right|863,300||1940||align=right|3,695,617
|-
||1820||align=right|1,177,500||1950||align=right|4,029,803
|-
||1830||align=right|1,372,100||1960||align=right|4,446,222
|-
||1840||align=right|1,445,600||1970||align=right|4,598,336
|-
||1850||align=right|1,636,900||1980||align=right|4,787,778
|-
||1860||align=right|1,746,700||1990||align=right|4,998,478
|-
||1870||align=right|1,768,800||2000||align=right|5,181,000
|}
</div>

===Population===
Finland currently numbers 5,302,778 inhabitants and has an average population density of 17 inhabitants per square kilometer. This makes it, after Norway and Iceland, the most sparsely populated country in Europe. Finland's population has always been concentrated in the southern parts of the country, a phenomenon even more pronounced after 20th century urbanization.

The share of foreign citizens in Finland is 2.5 percent being among the lowest of the European Union countries. Most of them are from Russia, Estonia and Sweden.

===Religion===
Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (81.7 percent). With approximately 4.6 million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world. A minority belong to the Finnish Orthodox Church (1.1 percent; see Eastern Orthodox Church). Other Protestantism denominations and the Roman Catholic Church in Finland are significantly.

The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles such as in state ceremonies and schools. A university degree in theology is compulsory for Lutheran priests. Representatives at Lutheran Church assemblies are selected in church elections every four years.

The Finnish are highly religious people nearing but not surpassing the United States of America in religiosity considering the populations of these two countries.

====President and cabinet====
Elected for a 6-year term, the president:
*Handles foreign policy, except for certain international agreements and decisions of peace or war, which must be submitted to parliament, and EU relations, which are handled by the prime minister;
*Is commander in chief of the armed forces and has wide decree and appointive powers;
*May initiate legislation, block legislation by pocket veto, and call extraordinary parliamentary sessions; and
*Appoints the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet (Council of State). The Council of State is made up of the prime minister and ministers for the various departments of the central government as well as an ex officio member, the Chancellor of Justice. Ministers are not obliged to be members of the Eduskunta and need not be formally identified with any political party.
The president may, upon proposal of the prime minister and after having heard the parliamentary groups, order parliament to be dissolved, and a new election held.

====Parliament====
Constitutionally, the 200-member, unicameral Eduskunta is the supreme authority in Finland. It may alter the constitution, bring about the resignation of the Council of State, and override presidential vetoes; its acts are not subject to judicial review. Legislation may be initiated by the president, the Council of State, or one of the Eduskunta members.

The Eduskunta is elected on the basis of proportional representation. All persons 18 or older, except military personnel on active duty and a few high judicial officials, are eligible for election. The regular parliamentary term is 4 years; however, the president may dissolve the Eduskunta and order new elections at the request of the prime minister and after consulting the speaker of parliament.

====Judicial system====
The judicial system is divided between courts with regular civil and criminal jurisdiction and special courts with responsibility for litigation between the public and the administrative organs of the state. Finnish law is codified. Although there is no writ of habeas corpus or bail, the maximum period of pretrial detention has been reduced to 4 days. The Finnish court system consists of local courts, regional appellate courts, a Supreme Court, and a Supreme Administrative Court.

====Administrative divisions====
Finland consists of five provinces and the self-ruled province of the Aland Islands. Below the provincial level, the country is divided into cities, townships, and communes administered by municipal and communal councils elected by proportional representation once every 4 years. At the provincial level, the five mainland provinces are administered by provincial boards composed of civil servants, each headed by a governor. The boards are responsible to the Ministry of the Interior and play a supervisory and coordinating role within the provinces.

The island province of Aland is located near the 60th parallel between Sweden and Finland. It enjoys local autonomy and demilitarized status by virtue of an international convention of 1921, implemented most recently by the Act on Aland Self-Government of 1951. The islands are further distinguished by the fact that they are entirely Swedish-speaking. Government is vested in the provincial council, which consists of 30 delegates elected directly by Aland's citizens.

====Military====
Finland's defense forces consist of 35,000 persons in uniform (26,000 army; 5,000 navy; and 4,000 air force). The country's defense budget equals about 1.3% of GDP. There is universal male conscription under which all men serve from six to 12 months. As of 1995, women were permitted to serve as volunteers. A reserve force ensures that Finland can field 490,000 trained military personnel in case of need.

====Political parties====
Finland's proportional representation system encourages a multitude of political parties and has resulted in many coalition governments. Political activity by communists was legalized in 1944, and although four major parties have dominated the postwar political arena, none now has a majority position. In elections held in 2007, the Center Party (Keskusta), traditionally representing rural interests, kept its position as the biggest party. The then-opposition Conservative Party, however, came away as the biggest winner, gaining 10 seats and becoming the second-largest political party in the country. The Center then formed a four-party governing coalition with the Conservatives and the Swedish People's Party and the Greens. The Social Democratic Party (SDP) suffered a defeat in these elections and fell to the third position among the big parties. Of the other parties, the True Finns, the Green League, and the Swedish People’s Party were able to gain seats in parliament. The Conservative Party received the portfolios of foreign minister, finance minister, and defense minister, among others, and became an important player after a long interval.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Tarja Halonen
*Prime Minister--Matti Vanhanen
*Foreign Minister--Ilkka Kanerva
*Ambassador to the United States--Pekka Lintu
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Kirsti Lintonen

===Foreign Relations===
Finland's basic foreign policy goal from the end of the Continuation War with the U.S.S.R. in 1944 until 1991 was to avoid great-power conflicts and to build mutual confidence with the Soviet Union. Although the country was culturally, socially, and politically Western, Finns realized they must live in peace with the U.S.S.R. and take no action that might be interpreted as a security threat. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened up dramatic new possibilities for Finland and has resulted in the Finns actively seeking greater participation in Western political and economic structures. Finland joined the European Union in 1995.

====Previous relations with the Soviet Union, and today with Russia====
The principal architect of the post-1944 foreign policy of neutrality was J.K. Paasikivi, who was President from 1946 to 1956. Urho Kekkonen, President from 1956 until 1981, further developed this policy, stressing that Finland should be an active rather than a passive neutral. This policy is now popularly known as the "Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line."

Finland and the U.S.S.R. signed a peace treaty at Paris in February 1947 limiting the size of Finland's defense forces and providing for the cession to the Soviet Union of the Petsamo area on the Arctic coast, the Karelian Isthmus in southeastern Finland, and other territory along the former eastern border. Another provision, terminated in 1956, leased the Porkkala area near Helsinki to the U.S.S.R. for use as a naval base and gave free access to this area across Finnish territory.

The 1947 treaty also called for Finland to pay to the Soviet Union reparations of 300 million gold dollars (amounting to an estimated $570 million in 1952, the year the payments ended). Although an ally of the Soviet Union in World War II, the United States was not a signatory to this treaty because it had not been at war with Finland.

In April 1948, Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. Under this mutual assistance pact, Finland was obligated--with the aid of the Soviet Union, if necessary--to resist armed attacks by Germany or its allies against Finland or against the U.S.S.R. through Finland. At the same time, the agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts. This agreement was renewed for 20 years in 1955, in 1970, and again in 1983 to the year 2003, although the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the agreement's abrogation.

The Finns responded cautiously in 1990-91 to the decline of Soviet power and the U.S.S.R.'s subsequent dissolution. They unilaterally abrogated restrictions imposed by the 1947 and 1948 treaties, joined in voicing Nordic concern over the coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and gave increasing unofficial encouragement to Baltic independence.

At the same time, by replacing the Soviet-Finnish mutual assistance pact with treaties on general cooperation and trade, Finns put themselves on an equal footing while retaining a friendly bilateral relationship. Finland now is boosting cross-border commercial ties and touting its potential as a commercial gateway to Russia. It has reassured Russia that it will not raise claims for Finnish territory seized by the U.S.S.R. and continues to reaffirm the importance of good bilateral relations.

====Multilateral Relations====
Finnish foreign policy emphasizes its participation in multilateral organizations. Finland joined the United Nations in 1955 and the EU in 1995. As noted, the country also is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace as well as a member in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. As a NATO partner, Finland had 100 troops in Afghanistan as of September 2007.

Finland is well represented in the UN civil service in proportion to its population and belongs to several of its specialized and related agencies. Finnish troops have participated in UN peacekeeping activities since 1956, and the Finns continue to be one of the largest per capita contributors of peacekeepers in the world. Finland is an active participant in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and in early 1995 assumed the co-chairmanship of the OSCE's Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Cooperation with the other Scandinavian countries also is important to Finland, and it has been a member of the Nordic Council since 1955. Under the council's auspices, the Nordic countries have created a common labor market and have abolished immigration controls among themselves. The council also serves to coordinate social and cultural policies of the participating countries and has promoted increased cooperation in many fields.

In addition to the organizations already mentioned, Finland became a member of the following organizations: Bank for International Settlements, 1930; International Monetary Fund, 1948; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1948; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1950; International Finance Corporation, 1956; International Development Association, 1960; European Free Trade Association, 1961; Asian Development Bank, 1966; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969; Inter-American Development Bank, 1977; African Development Bank, 1982; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 1988; the Council of Europe, 1989; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1991; World Trade Organization, 1995; and INTELSAT, 1999. Finland entered Stage Three of EMU (the European Monetary Union) in 1999. All the Nordic countries, including Finland, joined the Schengen area in March 2001.

==Economy==
Finland has an industrial economy based on abundant forest resources, capital investments, and high technology.

The Finnish economy has made enormous strides since the severe recession of the early 1990s. Finland successfully joined the euro zone and has outperformed euro-area partners in terms of economic growth and public finance. In the last few years, the Finnish economy has performed reasonably well. Total output was 5% higher in 2006 than in 2005, but economic activity leveled off in the latter half of the year. GDP is predicted to grow by 4.4% in 2007, while 2008 is likely to show a slower rate of growth, estimated at 3.3%. Despite the current favorable outlook, there is a degree of uncertainty in the Finnish economy caused by the large fluctuations in electronics industry production, together with resource constraints. Cost and price pressures have increased, and there is a threat of industry’s price competitiveness starting to weaken.

Unemployment decreased significantly from 1994 to 7.7% in 2006 and is expected to drop to 6.7% in 2007. A relatively inflexible labor market and high employer-paid social security taxes hamper growth in employment. Labor bottlenecks are becoming more common in certain sectors, and this will increasingly restrict growth in output in the future. The main constraint to medium-term economic growth will be the drop in the population of working age once the post-war baby boomers reach retirement age.

Exports of goods and services contribute 32% of Finland's GDP. Metals and engineering (including electronics) and timber (including pulp and paper) are Finland's main industries. The United States is Finland's third most important trading partner outside of Europe. With a 3.8% share of imports in 2006, the United States was Finland's seventh-largest supplier. The total value of U.S. exports to Finland in 2006 was $2.6 billion. Major exports from the United States to Finland continue to be machinery, telecommunications equipment and parts, aircraft and aircraft parts, computers, peripherals and software, electronic components, chemicals, medical equipment, and some agricultural products. The primary competition for American companies comes from Russia, Germany, Sweden, and China. The main export items from Finland to the United States are electronics, machinery, ships and boats, paper and paperboard, refined petroleum products, telecommunications equipment and parts. In 2006, the United States was Finland's fourth-largest customer after Germany (11.3%), Sweden (10.5%), and Russia (10.1%), with an export share of 6.5%, or $5 billion. However, trade is only part of the totality: the 10 biggest Finnish companies in the United States have a combined turnover that is three times the value of Finland's total exports to the United States. About 2.3% of the Finnish GDP comes from exports to the United States.

Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imported raw materials, energy, and some components for its manufactured products. Farms tend to be small, but farmers own sizable timber stands that are harvested for supplementary income in winter. The country's main agricultural products are dairy, meat, and grains. Finland's EU accession has accelerated the process of restructuring and downsizing of this sector.
*GDP: $210.8 billion (EUR 167.9 billion).
*GDP growth rate: 5%.
*Per capita income: $40,036 (EUR 31,886).
*Inflation rate: 1.6% (2006 average); 2.6% (September 2007).
*Natural resources: Forests, minerals (copper, zinc, iron), farmland.
*Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (2.9% of GDP): Products--meat (pork and beef), grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats), dairy products, potatoes, rapeseed.
*Industry (30.1% of GDP): Types--metal (including electronics and electrical equipment) and engineering, forest products, chemicals, shipbuilding, foodstuffs, textiles.
*Trade: Exports--$77.08 billion. Major markets--EU 56.9%, Russia 10.1%, U.S. 6.5%, China 3.2%. Imports--$68.9 billion. Major suppliers--EU 55.3%, Russia 14.1%, China 7.5%, U.S. 3.8%.

==History==
The origins of the Finnish people are still a matter of conjecture, although many scholars argue that their original home was in what is now west-central [[Siberia]]. The Finns arrived in their present territory thousands of years ago, pushing the indigenous Lapps into the more remote northern regions. Finnish and Lappish--the language of Finland's small Lapp minority--both are Finno-Ugric languages and are in the Uralic rather than the Indo-European family.

Finland's nearly 700-year association with the Kingdom of [[Sweden]] began in 1154 with the introduction of Christianity by Sweden's King Eric. During the ensuing centuries, Finland played an important role in the political life of the Swedish-Finnish realm, and Finnish soldiers often predominated in Swedish armies. Finns also formed a significant proportion of the first "Swedish" settlers in 17th-century America.

Following Finland's incorporation into Sweden in the 12th century, Swedish became the dominant language, although Finnish recovered its predominance after a 19th-century resurgence of Finnish nationalism. Publication in 1835 of the Finnish national epic, The Kalevala--a collection of traditional myths and legends--first stirred the nationalism that later led to Finland's independence from Russia.

In 1809, Finland was conquered by the armies of Czar Alexander I and thereafter remained an autonomous grand duchy connected with the Russian Empire until the end of 1917. On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence. In 1918, the country experienced a brief but bitter civil war that colored domestic politics for many years. During [[World War II]], Finland fought the [[Soviet Union]] twice--in the [[Winter War]] of 1939-40 and again in the [[Continuation War]] of 1941-44. This was followed by the [[Lapland War]] of 1944-45, when Finland fought against the Germans as they withdrew their forces from northern Finland.

During the Continuation War (1941-1944) Finland was a co-belligerent with [[Germany]]. However, Finnish Jews were not persecuted. Of the approximately 500 Jewish refugees who arrived in Finland, eight were handed over to the Germans, for which Finland submitted an official apology in 2000.<ref>[http://www.uta.fi/~tuulikki.vuonokari/fin-1.html Jews in Finland During World War II]</ref> Also during the war, approximately 2,600 Soviet prisoners of war were exchanged for 2,100 Finnish prisoners of war from Germany. In 2003, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted an official request for a full-scale investigation by the Finnish authorities of the prisoner exchange. It was established there were about 70 Jews among the extradited prisoners but none was extradited as a result of ethnic background or religious belief.

Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. as well as territorial concessions by Finland; both have been abrogated by Finland since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union.

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Copyright_Details_%28US_Government%29 Copyright Details]

[[Category:Finland]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Nordic Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Karl Marx

2008-11-07T14:44:32Z

Mikek: Undo revision 551298 by Palin666 (Talk)

{{Template:Sociology}}
[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an [[economics|economist]] who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on scientific bases.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as a fundamentally moral movement with no base in practical science. Marx's solution was to create an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

The system [[Dialectic]] which was employed by Marx was developed by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]]. Though concepts of dialectics had existed in philosophical theory since [[Plato]], Hegel systematized the idea more thoroughly than any previous thinker. For Hegel, reality is a reflection of the unfolding of Absolute Spirit, roughly meaning knowledge. Thus Hegel saw the contradictions of Enlightenment philosophy (such as between subject and object, mind and nature, etc) as phases in the development of Absolute spirit. These contradictions would be resolved dialectically through the progress of Absolute Spirit.

Marx argued that Hegel's dialectic was upside down. Instead of being based in human knowledge, the dialectical contradictions were based in human social reality. For Marx, the contradiction between subject and object in philosophy was a reflection of the actual contradiction between workers and employers under capitalism. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal contradictions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]] would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises when the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, thus creating "[[surplus value]]" over and above the value of the wages advanced. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

It's important to note, however, that Marx never argued in any sustained fashion that socialism was inevitable: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opiate of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

It should be noted, however, that Marx's metaphorical use of Judaism and money was standard for Jews of his time. Moses Hess, for example, self-consciously Jewish and proto-Zionist, used language almost exactly similar to Marx's in his "On the Money System." The equation of Judaism with money was standard for Marx's period, even by Jews.<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1977/kmtr1/app1.htm]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]
*[[Max Weber]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}

[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Ann Coulter

2008-11-05T19:23:03Z

Mikek: Undo revision 550019 by Wikihelper (Talk) Doesn't look like a grammar fix to me

{{merge from|Coulter on Hillary and McCain}}
[[Image:Coulter2006.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Coulter on the ''Tonight Show with Jay Leno''.]]
'''Ann Hart Coulter''' (b. 1961) is an [[attorney]], legal affairs correspondent, social commentator and a well know political pundit.
She has written five bestselling books on U.S. politics. U.S. Federal Judge [[Richard Posner]] called her one of America's top public intellectuals. <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] "Data for tables in Chapter 5 of Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline" where Posner talks about the data he used for his book ''Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline''.</ref> <ref>[http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] Table II, which is Posner's data for 607 public intellectuals. A PDF search of "Coulter" will show she is on Posner's list.</ref>

Coulter's primary focus is exposing the faults of [[liberalism]], and she has enjoyed a popular following for her strong defense of family values against [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]].
She is well known for her forthright statements against those who wish to hurt the [[United States]].

Coulter is a high profile female [[conservative]], in line with [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Condoleezza Rice]]. Her books and strong speaking style have endeared her to fans and infuriated opponents.

As a [[Christian]], Coulter attributes to the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition the view that [[human being]]s are utterly and distinctly apart from other species.

Being an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and her critics often feign being offended.<ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)]</ref><ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f*****.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html]</ref>

Coulter made headlines during the 2008 Presidential primaries by endorsing [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] for President instead of [[John McCain]]. Coulter asserted that McCain is not conservative, but [[liberal]].

==Books==

Some of her books include
*''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'' (2002)
*''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' (2003)
*''[[Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism]]'' (2004)
*''[[How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)]]'' (2005)
*''[[Godless: The Church of Liberalism]]'' (2007)
*''[[If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans]]'' (2007)

In ''Godless'', Coulter illustrates how liberals make a [[religion]] out of their beliefs, which they follow with the sort of intolerant zeal which they claim [[fundamentalist]]s do. "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul [and] that we are moral beings in God's image." (pg. 3)

==Quotes==

* "Whether they are defending the [[Soviet Union]] or bleating for [[Saddam Hussein]], liberals are always against [[United States of America|America]]. They are either traitors or idiots ... " <Ref>''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.''</ref>
* "My only regret with [[Timothy McVeigh]] is he did not go to the [[New York Times]] Building." She later clarified "Of course I regret [saying] it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm 9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter's 'Hate-Filled Attack'] Associated Press story in USA Today. "'My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,' The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: 'Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."'"</ref><ref>Hawkins, [http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php An Interview With Ann Coulter], Right Wing News.</ref>

* "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

* "Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to [[Darfur]], a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it... These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?...Darfur is not the threat... though a hostage-taking, [[Holocaust]]-denying lunatic who doesn't own a necktie but is within two years of having a nuclear bomb comes to mind. You can already hear [[Harry Reid]] and [[Nancy Pelosi]] saying, "If the Democrats were in charge, the use of military force wouldn't be necessary because we'd constructively engage them and appease their stated desire to kill us." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "If you want a shorter rebuilding process, then we're going to have to wage less humane wars. The enemy — as well as innocent civilians — must be bombed into quivering terror. Otherwise, we displace aggression but don't destroy it. Americans are weaker for having seen that kind of carnage in [[World War II]]. Recall that the Worst Generation was raised by the Greatest Generation. That tells you how awful war is. The Greatest Generation was so exhausted by the war, it didn't have the spine to stand up to pot-smoking, draft-dodging hippies occupying administration buildings." <REF>This appeared on Coulter's web site on April 4th, 2007. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=177</REF>

* "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your [[Communists]] will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." <ref> ''Politically Incorrect'', Feb. 26, 2001 </ref>

* "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start." <ref>Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002</ref>

* On Sept. 13, 2001 she wrote this about the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|Sept. 11 terrorist attack]]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." <ref>''National Review Online'', September 2001 [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml]</ref>

* "We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " <ref>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/coulteriffic.php RWN's Ann Coulter Interview #2] John Hawkins. </ref>

* "Liberals are driven by [[Satan]] and lie constantly. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21345 That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 06/28/2007.</ref>

* "Every concrete example of the racism allegedly sweeping the nation's campuses keeps turning out to be a fraud. Far from "institutional racism," there is "institutional racial hoaxism" run amok in this country."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email Another Liberal Noose-ance], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 10/17/2007,</ref>

* "Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23316 McCarthyism: The Rosetta Stone of Liberal Lies], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 11/07/2007.</ref>

* "By exposing the Democrats' absolute blindness to Soviet [[totalitarianism]], [[McCarthy]] shattered forever the nation's confidence in the Democrats' capacity to govern. For that, the [[Stalin]]ist [[liberal hate speech|hate machine]] attacked him viciously and has never let up."<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824 They'll Never Forgive You], by Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', 12/05/2007.</ref>

* "How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?], By Ann Coulter, ''Human Events'', October 31, 2007.</ref>

* "[The New York Times'] reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)" <ref>[http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071306.php3 ''N.Y. Times: Better dead than read]]</ref>

* "I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/</ref>

* "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Ann Coulter|Articles about '''Ann Coulter''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi AnnCoulter.com]
*RealClearPolitcs.com [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/poll_most_americans_love_coult.html Poll: Most Americans Love Coulter Columns], accessed 6 May 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html The Long Fuse on Ann Coulter's Bomb] - ''Washington Post'' - March 6, 2007
*[http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2095 Media Research Center 'Funny Video's from 2007'] Watch Ann Coulter present funny videos from 2007 at the 2008 MRC DisHonors Awards in DC.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coulter, Ann}}

[[Category:Women Authors]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]

User talk:Learn together

2008-11-05T16:48:58Z

Mikek: /* Blocks needed */

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

[[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive]]

==Contest==
How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our [[Conservapedia:Team Airborne|team page]]. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
== Rocker1973 ==

Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Larry_Craig&diff=299153&oldid=289755 . http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=299171&oldid=299152 shows how it works. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Beat me by 30 seconds! But I did block the IP range of all his proxies. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Better get a warranty if I do any paving! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest Points==
Great job raking up points yesterday!! <s>I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess).</s> Keep up the good work!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've created a page ([[User:Learn together/Contest2]]) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Urgent Matter... ==

Please contact me if you are around.... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sanford Ransdell Article ==

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Alchohol]] ==

It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Counting Contest Points==
If you could total your [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Learn_together/Contest2 contest points] for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Team_Airborne#Point_System here's] a link to the points guide)

:Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Points==
What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that [[Justice Joseph Story]] is after 12:00.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bush National Guard==

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the '''BIG LIE'''. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was <s>fired</s> allowed early retirement. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== My friend ==

Where are you? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest==
Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the [[Contest3|newest contest]]. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.

:Again, thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:: Nice to have you IN. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:::I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

::::Ready? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:::::Where is the list of your points? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::::::I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest2==
Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: <big>'''Supply Siders'''</big> --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Team page: [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders]] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Nice assist==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=A_Beautiful_Mind&curid=51139&diff=332837&oldid=332785&rcid=359995] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Dewey==

Why is Dewey blocked? [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

:He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== [[Panzerschreck]] ==

Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for cleaning up my edits ==

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example [[Philip_Pendleton_Barbour]]. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Jellyfish ==

Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*Invertebrates?

:I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==Points==
Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==KGB==
Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== block and delete needed ==

Just look at the recent changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:That should earn you a few points! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
::Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

== removal of copy righted material ==

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright.
hope you don't mind.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== Re-directs..... ==

Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==His Dark Materials==
Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited [[His Dark Materials]]. As you can see on my user page, [[User:JK899|JK899]], working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Learntogether, I understand you recently undid my edits to [[The Golden Compass]]. I'm not really sure why though, since my changes simply improved the flow of the passage and added additional information (such as the comparisons to Paradise Lost and its alternate title in NZ and the UK). Please feel free to discuss it with me further on the talk page. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Learntogether, I'm acting in good faith here and yet you're persisting in reverting my edits without comment. Please consider Philip's objective assessment and, in the words of Will Wheaton, "don't be a d***". :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sometimes there are instances where compromise as you wish it is not possible. We are both aware of Pullman's position and we come at it from opposite perspectives in life -- fair enough. But knowing why he wrote the books he did and what he was trying to get across, this site will not allow any watering down or political correctness to cover that up. Other information such as the different name in other continents is fine, but don't try to rewrite the story. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:: To be honest, I'm not sure you are fully aware of Pullman's position :D While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. If you've ever read his "Republic of Heaven" speech, he talks about how he is anti-religion because of the hierarchies and power politics it creates.
<blockquote>"We're used to the kingdom of heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of heaven instead of the kingdom of heaven. The king is dead. That's to say I believe that the king is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver. And, furthermore, we need it in this world where we do exist-- not elsewhere, because there ain't no elsewhere."</blockquote>
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Any proposal to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:: Good one! Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Coin collecting==

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Coins&rcid=378923 that category] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Response appreciated ==

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on changeblade@hotmail.co.uk Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. [[User:PleaseDeleteTempUser|PleaseDeleteTempUser]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads up ==

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

:No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Puellanivis==

I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy ''was'' out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Battle of Aegospotami/Delium? ==

Seeing as how [[Battle of Aegospotami]] was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:::You're already helping. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy categories ==

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. [[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for reworking [[Christian Domestic Discipline]]! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming [[Conservapedia:Contest4|contest]]. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New articles? ==

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

*''You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.''

Erm, those had been ''redirects''. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Learn together/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

==Double Redirect==

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:DoubleRedirects this list] before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I think you get a point Ed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)
==Your Article==
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to [[Drunk]] - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

For addressing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Barikada this]. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== MSM Redirect ==

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment]] and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Email==
You have some :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Points==
Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::BTW, good job with your own work and editing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:::Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::::There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== ID book ==

[[Intelligent Design (book)]] is the proper name, not [[Intelligent Design (Book)]], as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:It sound good, thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest 4 ==

Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Great Job LT!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from [[Conservapedia:Team Freedom|Freedom]]. Very well done, again!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::What is your secret to win every contest?

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Ban for username needed ==

[[Special:Contributions/PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]]. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)

::BethanyS banned him already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Barikada ==

It's starting to look like [[User:Barikada]] didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&curid=53111&diff=379019&oldid=379013 this edit]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm ''pretty'' sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest 5==
Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hi ==

Nice to see you in action again. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Trial Contest ==

Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}}, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! [[Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Gospel of Thomas]] ==

Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=391209&oldid=376583 this] edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

== Heads of government ==

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA ''World Factbook'' defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

{{unsigned|Dadsnagem2}}

== Greetings ==

From no where in the middle of a journey, --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Easton's Bible Dictionary==
Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Luke ==

Thank you so much for you help! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and thanks for not being mean on the Philip Pullman page.

== Deer ==

Why did you revert my edit to [[deer]]? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Would this source be better [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5330a1.htm]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Dangerous_animals] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people ''world-wide'' [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/questions/Attack.html#year], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
:::P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a serious site, and, come on. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Sons of Jacob==

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to '''list''' Jacob's 14 sons in the [[Jacob]] article at any point in time? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther,
Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Satan has been unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Congratulations and welcome aboard! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congrats, man! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent promotion, congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== TomMoore ==

*14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Virgin Mary gallery ==

Any contribution? [[Virgin Mary gallery]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?==

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

== query ==

Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles&diff=425607&oldid=425435]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles ==

In case you don't check the [[Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#City.2Ftown.2Fcounty_names_as_article_titles.3F|manual of style talk page]] very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]==

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Vietnam War Reversion==

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. [[User:Willink|Willink]] 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
==I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off==
Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sprawl ==

See Orange talk. Ta.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch? ==

I got the link![http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg] Can you upload for the [[The Scream]] page? {{unsigned|TagoPagdaluhong}}
:Nevermind, I found it--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== your edits to [[Orthodox Church]] ==

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
::Posted a note [[Talk:Orthodox_Church|here]], and I'd appreciated your comment. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 23:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Golden Compass article block ==

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Engrish==
Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again!
[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Featured articles ==

Please see [[Conservapedia talk:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Thurgood Marshall==

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

==NASA Pictures==
The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Crusades==
You appear to have removed my section about the pogroms against the Jews during the First Crusade in your reorg of [[Crusades]]. Was that a mistake or did you intend to do so? I was going to just assume the former, since it was well-sourced, but I thought it might do to check anyway.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:It was intentional as it was misplaced. The First Crusade was a success. The reference was to the totality of the Crusades and why they failed. If your source leaves out the pain of Francis of Assisi when he visited the Crusader army based on what he saw or the need of the Pope to excommunicate the Crusaders during a later Crusade, and believes it was only due to not keeping Church holidays, then it won't stay. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::...you could have added those things, if you wanted, without removing other accurate information, don't you think? Or moved it if you thought it was misplaced? Isn't that the usual thing done with sourced actual information? Are you denying the pogrom that occurred in the Rhine valley, which is what I was asking about?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It depends what you think is accurate. The information was entered based upon the 'failure' of the First Crusade and the reasons for it - while in reality that was the one Crusade that succeeded far beyond what would be expected. It's not my place to try to salvage information under those conditions. If you wish to see what information should be put back into the article in some form, one of the things you should ask yourself is does it belong and why? The previous avenue has been closed. I would hope your desire is to enrich the article with whatever information you find that is naturally a part of the subject and that however that unfolds, it unfolds. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I read that several times, but I guess I am just not smart enough. What I get is that you didn't think it was your job, essentially. That's weird, since generally on wikis people try to retain the good contributions of other people.
::::My desire is, naturally, to add information about the Crusades. In this case, I was adding information about the hideous atrocities enacted against Jews during the First Crusade. I don't know if you consider that "naturally a part of the subject," but I hope so.
::::Help me out: can I put that back in, or not?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is not my place to try to find somewhere for it to fit. The placement and reason for that placement originally given, was incorrect. If you feel it is has natural placement in another part of the article and matches the article scope and flow then put in those elements that you feel meet that criteria and I will examine it. But please realize the following historical information will be included:
:::::1) The mobs that attacked the Jews had nothing to do with the Crusading armies that eventually fought in the Holy Lands
:::::2) The Church authorities consistently tried to order them to desist, to no avail
:::::3) The Christian townspeople tried to hide the Jews from the approaching mobs
:::::4) When the mobs reached a fortified Christian nation, they were denied access as they were viewed as a bunch of unsavory criminals
:::::5) They then attacked the borders of the Christian nation
:::::6) At the moment it appeared victory was in their grasp as they were breaking through, they oddly got confused and fled, dispersing for good
:::::7) Their sudden defeat and fleeing was viewed as divine justice upon them from God
:::::[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Uh... okay, cool. You put whatever you want in there, that's fine with me. It's a wiki. I was just going to add the blurb about the pogrom in the Rhine valley, and since I think somewhere in there was assent, I will do so again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I sent you an email -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Email me back after you follow the instructions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Apology for my Edit on [[Al Franken]]==

I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused by suggesting that you hadn't read ''Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them''. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Where does one find the sysop group? ==

I don't know where to find it.
But common sense would dictate that the one who puts a disputed fact into an article is the one who needs to back it up. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 02:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:While I certainly respect that you have been given Sysop authority longer than I have, the general concensus among Sysops from when I asked the question before I was given the honor has been that flags are given for questioning only when there is a belief of error. Part of the belief is that we want all editors to actively contribute which means coming alongside and helping to build instead of pointing out to others where they need to do work. It's also best to send a private email to a fellow Sysop as a courtesy before questioning him in public. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I
::Fair enough. On second thought, I think the tags are not needed. However, with the citations, I disagree. If you make a claim in court, the burden of proof is on you. It is the same way here, (or should be) regardless of how it has been applied up till now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I've sent you an email to discuss this further if you wish. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

It was wrong of me to reverse your block without contacting you first. I would like to apologize for that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you Tim, and no problem. I am writing you back right now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barack Obama Edit ==

You removed a section that I had added to the Presidential Campaign paragraph: "In analyzing the plans of both candidates, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Senator Obama's plan offered larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers. Alternately, McCain's plan, the center found, would result in tax cuts that "primarily benefit those with very high incomes." <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/ Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama </ref>" It was clearly referenced, plays a part in the presidential campaign, adds information to the entry, and it was from a nonpartisan center.

Can you explain your removal of it from the encyclopedic entry of Barack Obama? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:The article isn't about a comparative analysis of what each candidate has adopted as their platform. Sticking that in there was out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Then can I add it to the 2008 presidential elections entry, since that is more about comparative analysis? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If that article is constructed in that form, then it may be an appropriate entry, but you will need to clean it up first. As it is right now, it says very little. What are the plans of the two candidates? You completely leave that out and instead address only the conclusion of a group to that which you have not even explained. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fixed==
Thanks for replying to me email, it has been fixed now. Not sure what was going on but I was missing the 'edit' button. It appeared back again though.
Thanks though mate!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:You sent your message rather late, so it is possible editing privilages were shut down for the night. Any time you have a difficulty, we'll do our best to look into it and help where we can. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christian category==

I was wondering why you removed the Christians category from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Sharpton. You may certainly (and understandably) view them as not practicing what they preach, but the Clintons are professed Christians, and Sharpton is an ordained minister. And about the schtick about Sharpton never having had a job...since when is being a minister not a job? Thank you. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Considering I removed over 40 people, why did you only choose those three? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because they were the ones I added. I hadn't noticed the others. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I was "equal opportunity". We're not looking for people who have church membership, but for those who in word and deed live the Christian message and seek to share that knowledge with others, often times even in the face of hardship. I hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:07, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Your call, but is that our place to judge? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::In this case yes. The Bible talks about what it means to be a Christian. I don't particularly care for the category, but since it exists, it is important to uphold that value. This does not mean that people left off of the list are certainly not Christians, only that it does not match the bar that has been set. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::If you feel that you are righteous enough to proclaim who is a true Christian and who does not meet the standards, then go for it. I personally believe only Jesus has that authority. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 00:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::As do I. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== McCain Edit? ==

Is the information that McCain hadn't received a divorce when he obtained his marriage certificate not factual? Do you think that it's not important that a presidential nominee was still married when he got a new marriage certificate? Or that he told a different story in his book than public records indicate? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:You are talking about clerking errors and delays. After taking the steps to procede with a divorce, a final date when it legally takes place is indicated. That the clerks in that Arizona jurisdiction did not file it until later is not John McCain's concern. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Reasonable explanation. But how about the fact that in his book he states that he had separated from his former wife before beginning to date his current wife, when according to the court petition he filed, he "cohabited" with his former wife until 1/7/80---nine months AFTER he started dating his current wife? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think you may be misunderstanding part of the goal of our site. Over a year ago a new user added information to the Hillary Clinton article that although they resided in the same state and were married, Bill and Hillary Clinton lived apart. That was easily verifiable and not open to interpretation. It was reverted by a Sysop because the site is not about gossip; it's about pertinent information about those aspects that make the person famous and noteworthy. So direct scandals such as Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are worthy of mention, but their current living situation serves no purpose. That new user was me, and I have tried to adhere to the standards set ever since - and still try to adhere to those standards now that I am a Sysop. John McCain has admitted to failures in his first marriage and failures at that time in his life. It's simply not a place that we go.

:::BTW you may also find that legal documents often have different meanings than common usage. Most of the time he didn't "cohabitate" with his wife at all because he was a senator in Washington, although he would still be considered to be cohabitating because that was his legal residence. Insinuation is not always the same as reality, and in this case it could be difficult to separate the two. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your taking the time to respond. As much as I hate to do it, I'd have to refer you to the entry on Barack Obama as a comparative piece of the two nominees. Obama's entry is filled with insinuations and speculations. I believe one of the most egregious is the insinuation/question of when he said 57 states (instead of 47 states) he was referring to the 57 Islamic states. Obviously that type of conjecture is far beyond the pale, and yet many of the sysops here have sidestepped the debate on that entry rather than stand up for a clearer and less gossip-filled encyclopedia.

::::If you are going to uphold the John McCain article to the standards you have tried to adhere to since starting here, I would hope that you would do the same for the Barack Obama entry I have now brought to your attention. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I can not bring about change in the Barak Obama article. I too am under authority and my edits were not accepted. But I do wish to make sure that the goal is not to see how much mud can be thrown and so, where I can, I try to uphold the standards that I have been told we adhere to. So please try to make the articles that you edit as professional as possible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::<nowiki>*Thumbs up*</nowiki> --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Hi! I appreciated your edit of John McCain and personally feel that it needs much more work. I take special offense to individuals who smear and place ridiculous facts on this website, and feel that Conservapedia is more moral than that. Please add further information as you discover if the article is ever going to appear on the Main Page, it must be informative an article as possible. --[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==New McCain Edit==

I must admit I tend to agree with you about the removal of the passages you did. However you should be aware there was a debate on this in the past few days and a consensus was reached to remove some, and leave some. I wonder if perhaps you should refer to that consensus first.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 12:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. I'll comment on the talk page now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Obama==

Just browsing through the Obama talk page it seems that there is no longer any issue about his place of birth. How would one go about getting that changed as it looks ridiculous to have it say "allegedly born". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:If the page is locked, then you'll have to leave a request on the talk page or find a sysop who will make the change for you. I've chosen not to get involved in that article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Re: Zogby Poll ==

LT, I took out the Zogby poll because for the past few weeks we have been doing the five most recent polls. When a newer poll comes in, we drop the oldest. Hence I dropped the Zogby poll which finished on 8/1 by replacing it with a poll completed on 8/4. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:57, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:I've been doing it more by date range, and, quite frankly, more people would be interested in what Zogby reports than in organizations not usually known for polling or at least not very recognizable.

:I've been reporting results without "leaners". Do you wish to report leaners? It's ok if you think that's a better indication of polling numbers. I would just like us to be consistent. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::You're right on leaners. On Real Clear Politics, they report the Rasmussen # with leaners, and I always forget to click the link for the actual results. That was just a slip of the brain. As far as the Zogby poll, I've been trying to stick with the 5 most recent polls, otherwise we could end up just adding and adding and having a table with 18 polls in it. I wanted to use the most recent ending date polls because that reflects the most recent trends in the campaign. If you want to keep the Zogby poll in there to make it 6, so be it, but it'll probably get knocked out in a day or two since the most recent polls now go through the 4th and 5th. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Swaggart ==

I added the quote as a controversy because it was big enough for him to issue an apology for it afterwards. He was speaking about gay marriage and had stated he never saw a man he would want to marry, and then went on to the aforementioned remarks. It was well-known enough to make it to the newspapers and, again, forced him to apologize. Seems like it was a controversial statement at the time he made it. The original section was termed "Quotes" but I didn't want it to appear as quote-mining so I changed it to controversy.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:I would see it as more of a controversy if he held to that view. Similar to talk show hosts, ministers such as Swaggart preach for several hours every week of every year. Things are going to come up that offend some people. I have found, on a whole, that ministers apologize more readily than most other people; that they do so should not be held against them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Block of RuralHall ==

Hi, was wondering why you blocked this user? Contributions seem sourced and there's no warnings/discussion on their talk page suggesting they are breaking any commandments or anything. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 16:49, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:When a user makes a change to an article to refer to the "cult of Christianity", he's basically asking for his walking papers. Other places may find that to be cute; we don't. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::I can't see that in his contributions, do you have a diff? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 15:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Wrong person. RuralHall was removed for ignoring discussion on talk page of what information was inappropriate and why and adding what he wished to anyway. When he was reverted, he added it again. Since he had no positive contributions to the site, he was removed for good. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Moving of an article ==

Hello there,
I'd like to request your help; the [[David Milliband]] article (British foreign secretary) is misspelt and should be at [[David Miliband]] (as noted within the article and the source therein), however I don't seem to have the rights to move an article. I'm not sure if it's because of the age of my account or whether this operation is restricted to sysops, so I thought it wiser to approach someone who obviously has the community's respect. Thanks for the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 18:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to request a few moves. I'm sorry if this the wrong place to ask. These images should be moved to the appropriate "Category:Middle-earth", as they are all scattered over the place: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Hobbit_cover.JPG], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Mhjfjfr7.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Silmarillion.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Middle-earth.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Sundering_of_the_Elves.png]. And these articles should be under proper names and spellings: [[Fatty Bolger|Fredegar Bolger]], [[Elf (Middle Earth)|Elf (Middle-earth)]], [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarf (Middle-earth)]], [[Théoden (Middle Earth)|Théoden]]. It would be nice if you could do this, if it isn't a bother. ~ [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]] 17:52, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Image uploads ==

Hello again, thanks for moving the article to the correct title per my request, I now have another query. I created the article [[European Parliament]], and have found some images on wikimedia commons which would illustrate the article quite well. I'm not really sure about the image policy on Conservapedia, and the upload tool is restricted to sysops anyway, so I was wondering if you could help out. The image is located [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Parliament_from_Cathedral.jpg here], and licensed under the GFDL, I'm not sure if that's compatible with this site or not. There are more images [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament here]. Thanks for taking the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 21:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:As I am not sure what is common usage myself, I usually defer to other Sysops when it comes to the proper implementation of pictures. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ok, no probs, cheers! [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 13:39, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==
Hi I reverted Saints listed Catholicism. I had a question regarding categories and thought you may be able to help. Under Saints, the structure is alphabetized but the names do not always match, e.g. Siant John of God, technically should be under (J) , by current sort it is under (S) and if I am correct- sort is established by last name or last word. Is there a better way to organize? Template structure flaw? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for taking care of this. The DefaultSort function allows sorting in whatever form is desired. Look at Saint Andrew near the bottom as an example. For Saints sorting should generally be done by first name, as many are known and referenced that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Could you please explain this edit? ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Trek&curid=13058&diff=513749&oldid=513747

<blockquote>
In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.
</blockquote>

Which episode? What aliens? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Unfortunately that's all I remember. It was a 'cloud' type area of space that they entered and then couldn't get out of. The alien materialized in the air on their ship and looked non-human. It had no legs or anything touching the ground. He said his species wished to study all forms of death and dying and then he killed one of the crew on the bridge. He said that to finish his experiments would take a little more than half of Picard's crew. It was a phony Ryker and Troi who were talking to him in his quarters when he made his statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::See [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease this page] which I've added to the Star Trek page. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you for including that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, got it. Unfortunately, Picard doesn't say anything about God in that scene, though he obviously is open-minded about there being something more than this life. See [http://tng.trekcore.com/episodes/scripts/128.txt here]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:15, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Imagining -> roleplaying ==

Ah ha! That's the word I was looking for! (My initial thought was "simulating", but I knew that wasn't right!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== McCain's education ==

I noticed you reverted my edit about McCain's lack of performance at the Naval Academy. I've reinserted the source for the claim, which I forgot to put in before your reversion. I hope this helps. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 14:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:This parodist has been dealt with. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You do know what a parodist is, right? How can he be a conservative parodist if he is inserting information that is harmful to a conservative? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Google the name. A false name calculated to raise sniggering hilarity among his [[adolescent]] [[Liberal]] chums, and obviously here solely to cause trouble. My nostrils scent parodist, Jazz, they scent vandal and troublemaker, doubtless spawned in the cesspit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::A false name, like "trumpeter", you know, "one who plays the trumpet"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT) (Um and Googling "Dr Hubert J Nugz" doesn't come up with anything. So try a little harder or you are going to start to look like a parodist.)
:::::Do you not know how to use Google? It came up with 2 hits to a parody site. You really need to try harder. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hint: drop the Dr. I doubt it comes from any reputable academic institution. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Give me links then. Everything's so obvious to you, why not just point it out instead of saying it's so obvious? I see two links to The Site That Must Not Be Named (which is not a parody site, unless you are trying to suggest something), and both of those links ''don't actually work'', so there's no way to verify that they aren't just pointing back at this Dr. And you still haven't explained why you are blocking people who have zero edits and no obvious harmful intent. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:04, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Heaven help us. You would let [[Osama bin Laden]] post on this site unless he questioned some dinosaur theory or other. Get real. We are surrounded by enemies: sniggering [[adolescent]] [[Liberals]], assorted leftist scum and [[atheists]] who seek to destroy this project. They fear what it may achieve. Let them fear us. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:In other words, when again asked a direct question, you make some assertion about me and dodge the question. I'm seeing a pattern here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:22, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::None so blind as those that will not see, HJ. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I have deleted the link as on closer inspection it is anti-CP and non-family-friendly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Please don't call me HJ. I followed your link and magically found the exact same thing as when I did the search myself: a whole lot of nothing. Here's the first page: some guy's blog that nobody appears to read (and isn't parody), a myspace page for a hip-hop band, a research paper, and several other no-name links. You know, if you actually had any real proof, this could have been taken care of almost ''an hour ago'' by just telling me what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, you can call me B if you want. It helps a friendly atmosphere, I feel. If you found that blog wholesome and helpful thenm I pity you. I would rather give an innocent youth or maiden a phial of prussic acid than let him or her read that filth. And consequently the good doctor is not a fit or proper person to practice his moral perversions on this site. End of discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Is it parody, or is it unwholesome? Because it looks to me like you blocked someone for being mentioned all of twice on a rarely-read blog (judging by the amount of comments) which has a lot of articles about golf, law school, and poetry. It is, granted, often peppered with swears and material not appropriate for this website, but that's just it, ''it's not on this website'', and you really have no basis for blocking DrHubertJNugz, and what evidence you did give is clearly false. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Missed posts ==

You appear to have missed my posts on [[Talk:National Center for Science Education]] and [[Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them]]. Your response would be appreciated at your earliest convenience. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 21:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks for the unblock==

I appreciate the opportunity to keep contributing. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:33, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:...and here's the time-sensitive project I mentioned: [[Essay: Conservapedia Questions for the 2008 Presidential Candidates]]. I'm waiting to see if Aschlafly approves of the concept. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==FAs==
If [[Hollywood Values]] has not been nominated to be featured, could you do so? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin Talk Page Edits==

I've left the article alone regarding rape kits, and will not change your edits to my update with details on the troopergate votes. Why though, was it necessary to pull my closing comment on the Talk page as well? I wasn't rude or insulting, and I provided evidence to back up the point I made. Are these statements of fact made with the supporting evidence so inappropriate that they had to be erased from the page instead of being responded to in kind?

That was my final say on the Palin Talk page for the rape-kit matter, and since I have the truth on my side I'm okay with leaving your deletion of it intact - you can deny the facts but it doesn't make them any less true. I've moved on to other constructive tasks here like the candidate-questions project, so please don't block me again over this. I'm letting this one go. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your numbers make that small town the rape capital of the world. It would appear there was more there than your site is reporting. For issues such as this I dig deeper and want to know more. Did any insurance companies refuse to pay? Was anyone who reported they were assaulted actually billed? I'd imagine your site would provide that information if they had anything that was damaging to Palin. As it stands right now, the reasons and what occurred are more tied together by innuendo.

:And, as you know by our private conversation, you requested I allow your talk page entries to stay - but never said anything about continuing to post more. I don't like when someone stretches to get in one last shot - and I think you understand that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Siteadmin? ==

Hi LT, what exactly does a siteadmin do? I'm having some, uh, problems. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:So am I, but I'm not running to teacher like a whining little coward. Nor am I a saboteur from a site overtly determined on the destruction of Conservapedia. Sorry, HJ (sob sob) - or is that ''Jazzman''?. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::To be fair, Bugler also thinks he's having a problem so it's not fair of me to say that I'm the only one. I apologize again. Though I don't think asking a third party for mediation constitutes "running to teacher". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Fairly said. I apologise for my intemperate rematrks. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen: As much as we can, we prefer to have those who have been given rights and privileges on this site, and both of you have, to solve differences between yourselves. We are part of a greater community and that means an ability to work together among our valued editors. We can get involved if there truly is no ability to find common respect and acceptance, but that is not the preferred method if it can be avoided. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Category Religion ==
Revert category complete. Any possibility you will join [[Wikiproject: Religion]]? This project needs direction. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:The project is way too large and unwiedly to work in its current form. Even if it had been a Wikiproject: Bible it would have been a huge undertaking, but by massing every article that even touches upon religion, it's more of an exercise in lumping categories than a project that could actually work. I'm afraid there is little I could add or do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:02, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

==Erasing threads of inquiry on Talk|Palin==

I'm not going to go back and forth on the Palin page anymore, but I have to ask you for an honest answer to this: You seem intent on erasing any discussion about the Palin rape-kit issue and try to redirect the conversation to what you perceive as press bias, instead of actually addressing the questions and facts presented. If you are so insistent that this story is not true, then why not take up the challenge of rebutting the evidence presented with evidence of your own? When you just erase things you don't agree with, it's an endorsement of them being true - an uncomfortable, inappropriate truth to you, but still the truth as long as you don't refute it openly and credibly. This isn't personal, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this instead of dismissing or erasing it. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:See answer above under the previous time you asked me. You have made me regret that I believed in your initial email correspondence. I will not be fooled again. In the future, your block stands for full duration. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Why are you treating me like I'm some kind of subversive out to harm this project, or a deceiver taking advantage of your goodwill? We had a back-and-forth over my edits on the Palin page (regarding a subject I won't even mention again with you), and the key point you and Jpatt kept making is that the stories were smears without proof. So I did the responsible thing, and found the proof to back up the point and show it was the truth. At that point my edits were called "inappropriate" - not untruthful, just inappropriate, and I was blocked for reinserting them. When I asked you to remove my block so I could do other constructive things here, I promised to leave the article alone, and asked you to preserve the discussion. You kept your word, and I thanked you publicly for it. I kept my word, creating a project here you commended, and added a last post to the Palin ''Talk'' page to achieve closure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

::: A) Do not try to label my concerns into what you wished they were. I did not just say there was no proof and that's why we can't insert it. Do not act otherwise.
::: B) I already stated above that your choice to continue to write on the talk page on the subject was inappropriate in view of your email request. That you have chosen to ignore it above while bringing it up here again is also unfortunate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:: ...When you removed that you responded as if I had misled you, and I apologize if that's the case. I had asked you to leave the talk thread intact wit the intent of closing it - the last point was you asking for proof because you asserted there was none, and my last edit was to respond with the proof you asked for. That's why others added their comments, which have been deleted as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::If you had every intention of continuing the talk page discussion then you should have stated it as such. By asking me to please just keep what you had put, you implicitly implied otherwise. Your efforts to continue were, of course, removed as well as any reference to them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, enough of the recap. I just wanted to point out that I'm a respectful and professional contributor here, even when people don't like what I'm contributing. I didn't lie or mislead you when I asked to have my block lifted, and constructive things you approve of have happened because I've been back here. I always follow the CP commandment to contribute true and verifiable edits, and simply ask that they be responded to in kind, instead of being erased when they can't. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::Can't? I had already responded with my thoughts above before you wrote this - which you have conveniently ignored. And that is fine as long as you don't try to open a new thread as if I never put my response - like you are doing here. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::I've been blocked a dozen times for being true to my convictions, --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::Actually, I think other reasons have been given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::... and I think the only reason I'm allowed to remain here is that I'm still recognized as a constructive editor who honestly tries to make this project better.

::If you disagree, then feel free to restore my block for as many days left as I had on the original. The only request I'd have is that you pick up and guide the "Questions for the Candidates" project I set up while I'm blocked. That's a worthwhile project, and time-sensitive. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I've said my piece, you've said your piece, and I'm letting it go - time to move on. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==McCain talkpage==
I feel you should at the least, leave Aschlafly comments to JonPdh since it was a response posted today. Also, I feel IanG doesn't deserve to be here at CP for his snide reply comments. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
:JonPdh seemed to just like rehashing things that already had answers, albeit with a sprinkling of negative insinuations along the way. It served no useful purpose. If he had asked for clarifications at first then that could have been valid, but we don't need to give an audience to a 'new' user who likes to force in his view against previous decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:57, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

While I was on my, um, sabbatical, I noticed this in the block log:
*''13:19, 3 October 2008 Learn together (Talk | contribs | block) blocked JonPdh (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye Bye) (unblock) ''
What does the "e-mail blocked" part mean? Is that something only a sysop can do? I've started noticing that recently and it's got my curiosity piqued. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

:It's the bottom of the 3 boxes to check when you block someone. I am assuming you have that option as well, but I don't know. Blocking email is usually only used in the case of overt vandalism or users who only seek to disrupt. For anyone else, email correspondance is left open in case they wish to discuss their block and how to become positive contributors to the project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:37, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

::"Ordinary" editors with block rights don't appear to have this option. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:57, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I figured it was something like that; I was just curious. And to paraphrase what Brian said, we peons don't have a third option :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually, I noticed this third checkbox in the block dialog about a month ago, but it quickly disappeared after less than a week, so maybe it was a new feature introduced with a wiki upgrade that then had to be calibrated. In any case, I'm in the same boat with HelpJazz and BrianCo in that I don't have it anymore. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:54, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::::: I believe that it ''was'' a new feature with the software upgrade, but I still have it, so it does seem as if it's only available to sysops, even if it was temporarily available to all for a short while. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:41, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Roman Catholicism==
When you've a moment, please take a look at my comments (and those of Jpatt) on the talkm page re. Controversy. I don't want to do anything precipitously but do feel very strongly about this issue and the unfairness of it. Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== Scottish religious history ==

my dear fellow conservative,
i was a bit unhappy to find my addition to the page in question modified in the way it has been, i have 'counter-repaired' it if you dont mind.

yours merrily, PhilipV

:I'm not sure I understand your concern. The information you presented was incorrect and was adjusted. You have since added an edit that is correct. Good [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:13, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Blocks needed ==

Please block parodists [[user:City]] and [[user:Ihateobama]].--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:There should be some kind of a rank that allows something on the level of a citizen's arrest here... let regular users with no other special privileges have blocking rights on accounts that have been active for say... at most 20 minutes, just to get rid of the annoying vandals [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Democratic Party

2008-11-05T16:40:36Z

Mikek: Undo revision 549903 by IhateObama (Talk) *Sigh*

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

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. Its leadership is [[liberal]], in contrast with [[conservative]] voters who tend to support the rival [[Republican Party]].<ref>See [[political spectrum theory]]</ref> Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. Republicans (and some Democrats) sometimes call it the "Democrat Party," which the liberals dislike intensely.

In 2007-08 the Democrats at the national level raised far more campaign funds than the Republicans.

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

The nominee for the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 presidential election]] is Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]], who defeated [[Hillary Clinton|Senator Hillary Clinton]] despite her 18 million votes in the primaries. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], elected in 1992 and 1996.
===Florida 2007-8===
In 2007, the Democratic leadership in Florida broke the party rules by moving their primaries up. This disqualified their delegates from the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Democratic_Strategy|2008 Presidential Primary Election]] 2008 Democratic National Convention.<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersberg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> The ''St. Petersberg Times'' quotes a letter from Florida Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and others Democratic members of the Florida Congressional delegation sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]] protesting a move by the Committee to violate individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]],
{{Cquote|It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote," the letter said. "We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right.}}

The Democrats ended up seating all of Florida's delegates but they will only have half of a vote each at the convention. A full Michigan delegation with half-votes was seated as well, but Obama was assigned all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates, and four Hillary Clinton delegates were transferred to Barack Obama, allegedly to compensate for the Barack Obama supporters who didn't vote because he removed his name from the Michigan ballot.

No states compensated their delegate counts to reflect the will of seventeen year-olds who would have been eighteen by election night had those states not moved up their primaries and caucuses, though some states permit seventeen year-olds who will be eighteen on election night to vote in that state's primary election or caucus.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, at the U.S. Capitol Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry into President's Bush's foreign policy. Concurrently, a rally was being held at the Democratic National Party headquarters where some activists handed out [[anti-Semitic]] materials, claiming that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

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

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

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

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] and Massachusetts Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist white voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.
==History==
===Origins in the 1820s===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party. Jefferson did found a party in the 1790s, which he called the "Republican Party." Historians and political scientists call it the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]. That party became defunct in the 1820s. Some of its leaders like [[Henry Clay]] created the [[Whig Party]]. Other leaders, especially [[Andrew Jackson]] and [[Martin Van Buren]] created the modern Democratic party.

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1828-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.JPG|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
After 1830, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]]. The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[image:~machine.JPG|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:~hanna2.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1896 Davenport cartoon depicts Republican Mark Hanna as a slave driver, from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Cleveland supporters formed the [[Gold Democrats]], which attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train—he was the first candidate ever to go on the road—he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:FDR_in_1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevely successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition"]], a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing ony Maine and vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civl rights was not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights Movement==
[[Image:Lbj-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.

==1972 to 1999==
[[Image:Jimmy Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate scandal]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and vote with the Democratic Caucus, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative Barbara Lee of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moves to populist antibusiness positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

[[Image:John Kerry headshot with US flag.jpg|180px|left|thumb|Senator [[John Kerry]] of Massachusetts was the 2004 nominee.]]

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives. Also, for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia—which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref> Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek, ''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future'' (2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war.<ref name=future /> Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.

House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for Majority Leader. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader.

==Symbols==
[[Image:Democraticjackass.jpg|thumb|250px|"A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion" by Thomas Nast]]
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today.

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

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

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

Republican Party

2008-11-05T16:38:19Z

Mikek: Undo revision 549898 by City (Talk)

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Mike Duncan]]
| president = [[George W. Bush]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a Republican, but the party's head is its presidential candidate [[John McCain]]. The Republican party is the center-right party. The Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen and evangelical Protestants, while the Democrats appealed more to the poor and to minority ethnic, racial and religious groups.

The party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections.

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]
[[Image:gop.jpg|right|150px|Official logo of the GOP.]]
The official symbol of the Republican Party is the [[elephant]]. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as [[Indiana]] and [[Ohio]] was the [[eagle]], as opposed to the Democratic [[cock]]. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 10 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, and 1996). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|American election campaigns in the 19th century}}
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

[[Image:Rings.jpg|thumb|250px|right|1874 Keppler cartoon of Grant using Whiskey Ring and corruption to hold GOP together.]]

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electiorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failues of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968)|civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).

The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.

==Presidential dominance==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]
In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).

From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.

Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).

John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.

It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.

The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.

Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.

In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)

*Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.
*Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.
*FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.
*Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.
*McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.
*Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.
*GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.

Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Famous Republicans==
*[[Abraham Lincoln]] (1809 - 1865), 16th President of the United States
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893), Senator from Maine and Presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926), Speaker of the House
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936), [[United States Vice President|Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951), Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971), governor of New York; presidential nominee 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890), 1st Republican Candidate for President of the United States
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904), Senator from Ohio; manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904), Senator from Massachusetts
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]] governor of New York, nominee for president in 1916, Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908-1974) Senator from [[California]]; Senate Majority Leader: 1953-1955; Senate Minority Leader: 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924) Senator from [[Massachusetts]]; foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957), Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted [[anti-communist]]
*[[Richard Nixon]], (1913 - 1994), 37th president of the United States
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902), [[Speaker of the House]]
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979), Vice President, [[Governor of New York]], leader of liberals
*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] President of the United States, (1901 - 1909)
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792-1868), Pennsylvania Senator; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]], (1811-1874), Senator from Massachusetts; leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]], Secretary of War for Taft and FDR; Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Alphonso Taft]] (1889 - 1953), Ohio Senator and presidential hopeful
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003), the oldest serving Senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951), Michigan Senator; leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974), Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] President of the United States, (1981 - 1989)
*[[George H.W. Bush]] President of the United States, (1989 - 1993)
*[[George W. Bush]] President of the United States, (2001 - present)
*[[John McCain]], presidential nominee, 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]] Vice-presidential nominee, 2008

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

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

Democratic Party

2008-11-05T16:35:03Z

Mikek: Undo revision 549896 by City (Talk) Why do I have the feeling you're going to be a sock of Mccainwon?

Democratic Party

2008-11-05T16:26:22Z

Mikek: Undo revision 549884 by McCainwon (Talk) No