Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-22T22:53:27Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

== Christianity? ==
I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads and musicians are openly Christian, such as Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson of Megadeth, Jack Owen, and Tom Araya of Slayer. I believe a more accurate statement would be that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent in extreme metal music. There is also a strong Christian Metal Subgenre, see bands such as As I Lay Dying, Believer, and Stryper. I shall change the statements to be more accurate and less condemning. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't even say that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent at all. I listen to metal music, and sure some of it is about death and killing and things like that, but I wouldn't say it's Anti-Christian. Some metal music includes themes that are similar to many popular songs of other genres, just in a different form. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's primarily what I hoped to get across, I suppose the term "present" is more accurate. I consider the music to show, when it discusses Satan, a Christian perception of the being. What I meant to say was that the only genre, to my knowledge, that contains overtly anti-Christian themes would be death metal or black metal, and even there it is somewhat rare. I think many mainstream Christians misconstrue the disrespect for organized religion (i.e, a church, pastors, or priests.) for being Anti-Christian. They are not one in the same, as to not believe in church is not the same as not believing in god. I'll change it to be more accurate.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As a metal fan (who's wearing a Dream Theater shirt right now), I think that the Satan reference was ridiculous. I took it right out. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, i thought of it as inappropriate as well, but since it referenced it as the opinions of conservatives, I left it. Dream Theater! Another openly Christian metal band (though not in the Christian metal genre). I have a few more changes to make on the article, you left a slight typo! I forgive you! [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, creating this article in the way I did was almost a joke; this is indeed a conservative encyclopedia -- so I used those particular statements to be, in a way, on the extreme of what some people might think. Don't take it the wrong way. Plus, the username I chose might have tipped people off: I really don't know much in the way of creating encyclopedia articles, so I left things vague and unopinionated (my opinions, anyway). I am actually a metal fan who laughed at the article, not believing in what I was typing. Then again, some of the more extreme Black metal bands do reference Satan in non-metaphorical terms. But most of those bands are without actual substance and therefore suck. [[User:N00b|N00b]] 09:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, and I know only two people that worship the devil, as a god, in metal music of any form: Glen Benton, and Oystein Aarseth (Aka Euronymous), both extremists not to be considered the standard of a heavy-metaller.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-21T21:39:27Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

== Christianity? ==
I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads and musicians are openly Christian, such as Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson of Megadeth, Jack Owen, and Tom Araya of Slayer. I believe a more accurate statement would be that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent in extreme metal music. There is also a strong Christian Metal Subgenre, see bands such as As I Lay Dying, Believer, and Stryper. I shall change the statements to be more accurate and less condemning. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't even say that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent at all. I listen to metal music, and sure some of it is about death and killing and things like that, but I wouldn't say it's Anti-Christian. Some metal music includes themes that are similar to many popular songs of other genres, just in a different form. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's primarily what I hoped to get across, I suppose the term "present" is more accurate. I consider the music to show, when it discusses Satan, a Christian perception of the being. What I meant to say was that the only genre, to my knowledge, that contains overtly anti-Christian themes would be death metal or black metal, and even there it is somewhat rare. I think many mainstream Christians misconstrue the disrespect for organized religion (i.e, a church, pastors, or priests.) for being Anti-Christian. They are not one in the same, as to not believe in church is not the same as not believing in god. I'll change it to be more accurate.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As a metal fan (who's wearing a Dream Theater shirt right now), I think that the Satan reference was ridiculous. I took it right out. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, i thought of it as inappropriate as well, but since it referenced it as the opinions of conservatives, I left it. Dream Theater! Another openly Christian metal band (though not in the Christian metal genre). I have a few more changes to make on the article, you left a slight typo! I forgive you! [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, creating this article in the way I did was almost a joke; this is indeed a conservative encyclopedia -- so I used those particular statements to be, in a way, on the extreme of what some people might think. Don't take it the wrong way. Plus, the username I chose might have tipped people off: I really don't know much in the way of creating encyclopedia articles, so I left things vague and unopinionated (my opinions, anyway). I am actually a metal fan who laughed at the article, not believing in what I was typing. Then again, some of the more extreme Black metal bands do reference Satan in non-metaphorical terms. But most of those bands are without actual substance and therefore suck. [[User:N00b|N00b]] 09:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, and only two people that worship the devil, as a god, that come to mind: Glen Benton, and Oystein Aarseth (Aka Euronymous), both extremists not to be considered the standard of a heavy-metaller. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-21T21:39:10Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

== Christianity? ==
I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads and musicians are openly Christian, such as Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson of Megadeth, Jack Owen, and Tom Araya of Slayer. I believe a more accurate statement would be that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent in extreme metal music. There is also a strong Christian Metal Subgenre, see bands such as As I Lay Dying, Believer, and Stryper. I shall change the statements to be more accurate and less condemning. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't even say that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent at all. I listen to metal music, and sure some of it is about death and killing and things like that, but I wouldn't say it's Anti-Christian. Some metal music includes themes that are similar to many popular songs of other genres, just in a different form. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's primarily what I hoped to get across, I suppose the term "present" is more accurate. I consider the music to show, when it discusses Satan, a Christian perception of the being. What I meant to say was that the only genre, to my knowledge, that contains overtly anti-Christian themes would be death metal or black metal, and even there it is somewhat rare. I think many mainstream Christians misconstrue the disrespect for organized religion (i.e, a church, pastors, or priests.) for being Anti-Christian. They are not one in the same, as to not believe in church is not the same as not believing in god. I'll change it to be more accurate.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As a metal fan (who's wearing a Dream Theater shirt right now), I think that the Satan reference was ridiculous. I took it right out. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, i thought of it as inappropriate as well, but since it referenced it as the opinions of conservatives, I left it. Dream Theater! Another openly Christian metal band (though not in the Christian metal genre). I have a few more changes to make on the article, you left a slight typo! I forgive you! [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, creating this article in the way I did was almost a joke; this is indeed a conservative encyclopedia -- so I used those particular statements to be, in a way, on the extreme of what some people might think. Don't take it the wrong way. Plus, the username I chose might have tipped people off: I really don't know much in the way of creating encyclopedia articles, so I left things vague and unopinionated (my opinions, anyway). I am actually a metal fan who laughed at the article, not believing in what I was typing. Then again, some of the more extreme Black metal bands do reference Satan in non-metaphorical terms. But most of those bands are without actual substance and therefore suck. [[User:N00b|N00b]] 09:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, and only two people that worship the devil, as a god, come to mind: Glen Benton, and Oystein Aarseth (Aka Euronymous), both extremists not to be considered the standard of a heavy-metaller. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-21T21:38:59Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

== Christianity? ==
I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads and musicians are openly Christian, such as Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson of Megadeth, Jack Owen, and Tom Araya of Slayer. I believe a more accurate statement would be that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent in extreme metal music. There is also a strong Christian Metal Subgenre, see bands such as As I Lay Dying, Believer, and Stryper. I shall change the statements to be more accurate and less condemning. [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't even say that Anti-Christian sentiments are quite prevalent at all. I listen to metal music, and sure some of it is about death and killing and things like that, but I wouldn't say it's Anti-Christian. Some metal music includes themes that are similar to many popular songs of other genres, just in a different form. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That's primarily what I hoped to get across, I suppose the term "present" is more accurate. I consider the music to show, when it discusses Satan, a Christian perception of the being. What I meant to say was that the only genre, to my knowledge, that contains overtly anti-Christian themes would be death metal or black metal, and even there it is somewhat rare. I think many mainstream Christians misconstrue the disrespect for organized religion (i.e, a church, pastors, or priests.) for being Anti-Christian. They are not one in the same, as to not believe in church is not the same as not believing in god. I'll change it to be more accurate.[[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

As a metal fan (who's wearing a Dream Theater shirt right now), I think that the Satan reference was ridiculous. I took it right out. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, i thought of it as inappropriate as well, but since it referenced it as the opinions of conservatives, I left it. Dream Theater! Another openly Christian metal band (though not in the Christian metal genre). I have a few more changes to make on the article, you left a slight typo! I forgive you! [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 18:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, creating this article in the way I did was almost a joke; this is indeed a conservative encyclopedia -- so I used those particular statements to be, in a way, on the extreme of what some people might think. Don't take it the wrong way. Plus, the username I chose might have tipped people off: I really don't know much in the way of creating encyclopedia articles, so I left things vague and unopinionated (my opinions, anyway). I am actually a metal fan who laughed at the article, not believing in what I was typing. Then again, some of the more extreme Black metal bands do reference Satan in non-metaphorical terms. But most of those bands are without actual substance and therefore suck. [[User:N00b|N00b]] 09:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, and only two people that worship the devil, as a god, come to mind: Glen Benton, and Oystein Aarseth (Aka Euronymous), both extremists not to be considered the standard of a heavy-metaller.

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T23:19:51Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T22:15:56Z

Mustaine12390: Fixed Typo; added influence to genre developement

Heavy Metal was developed around 1969 and 1974 from Psychedelic and Blues Rock and Classical music. The aural aspects of metal generally revolve around highly-amplified guitar distortion and fast guitar solos. Metal has a large amount of fans throughout the world. While Anti-Christian sentiments are quite common amongst the extreme metal sub genres, especially black and death metal, there is a large amount of heavy metal with an overtly Christian message (i.e, As I Lay Dying, Believer, Stryper) and several musicians of the genre are openly Christian, though very few outside Christian metal could be called fundamentalists. Such musicians include: Tom Araya, Dave Mustaine, Dave Ellefson, Chris Jericho, Max Calvera, and Dan Spitz.

Sub genres include Black Metal, Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, Doom Metal, Folk Metal, Viking Metal, Power Metal, Progressive (or Avant-Garde) Metal, and Gothic Metal.

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T22:14:36Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T22:13:46Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T22:07:26Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T22:07:15Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-20T20:35:10Z

Mustaine12390: /* Aliens? */

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it.

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T20:25:05Z

Mustaine12390: /* Christianity? */

Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T20:24:39Z

Mustaine12390: Changed POV statement to a more accurate one. Genres also labeled a little incorrectly.

Heavy Metal was developed around 1969 and 1974 from Blues Rock, Classical music, and apparently Satan - according to many Christians and conservatives. The aural aspects of metal generally revolve around highly-amplified guitar distortion and fast guitar solos. Metal has a large amount of fans throughout the world. While Anti-Christian sentiments are quite common amongst the extreme metal sub genres, especially black and death metal, there is a large amount of heavy metal with an overtly Christian message (i.e, As I Lay Dying, Believer, Stryper) and several musicians of the genre are openly Christian, though very few outside Christian metal could be called fundamentalists. Such musicians include: Tom Araya, Dave Mustaine, Dave Ellefson, Chris Jericho, Max Calvera, and Dan Spitz.

Sub genres include Black Metal, Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, Doom Metal, Folk Metal, Viking Metal, Power Metal, Progressive (or Avant-Garde) Metal, and Gothic Metal.

Talk:Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T20:16:57Z

Mustaine12390: New page: == Christianity? == I find the statement on Christianity to be rather inaccurate. While I understand this is a conservative encyclopedia, that is no excuse for fallacies. Many metalheads ...