Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Che Guevara

2009-01-04T05:09:39Z

NTemple:

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Er, killing him in out in the jungle? Where, exactly, do you think he is? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

== Poster ==
Er- isn't this an article about Che? Should the only pictures present be ones of, oh, I don't know, CHE??!?!?--[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 00:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Why are you thinking this is encyclopedia?! --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 07:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Living legends==

Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
==Liberal Activist?==
Che was a militant communist, he was the farthest thing from liberal. How can he be in this category. --[[User:JeffreyJamesRideout|JeffreyJamesRideout]] 20:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
==Pic is foolish==
I don't care if you hate the guy or not, that picture is immature and juvenile. --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I like it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

But isn't this supposed to be a serious encyclopedia? The pic seems like a joke --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:I think I'll get the t-shirt myself! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
That's why they call us Conservapedia--we don't 'baah' with the herd. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

Mayhaps, but when people see this, they're going to think this site is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia wouldn't allow a childish image like that. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:Childish? And how would characterize honoring a terrorist? On second thought, that should be rephrased--I wouldn't wish to insult children by equalting their behaviour to romanticized T-shirts of Che Guevara. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::Then how about an actual photograph? The article rips him apart, put the picture costs you credibility. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:58, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::As you said, "Wikipedia wouldn't allow it," I couldn't think of a better argument to keep it than that. We just need to expand a bit about our misguided youth on campus, and the societal factors that lead them astray, to pay actual money for his T-shirts, and worse yet walk around as if they are "hip" or proud to wear such a thing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::It is really a rather childish. You could always use [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg this pic]. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::He almost looks like Jim Morrison in that picture. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
So would you have a picture of Hitler with a caption that said 'I invaded Poland and all I got was this lousy T-shirt?' You're making light of a serious issue. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 01:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, Che was a head of State? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
== The guy actually wasn't that bad… ==

He was quite humane, gave Bolivian soldiers medical care, etc. Just because someone is a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're evil. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:09, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:A humane terrorist. How poetic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:29, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Ronald Reagan was a terrorist to? Remember Nicarauga, and helping Saddam --[[User:CheGuevara|CheGuevara]] 19:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::[http://www.amazon.com/Exposing-Real-Che-Guevara-Idolize/dp/1595230270 I read he was a homophobe.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Final sentence==
That final sentence should go. "[[Yasser Arafat]] and [[Osama bin Laden]] are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader." It basically says that the reason Osama hasn't been killed is to avoid making him a martyr, not because he can't be found. I really don't think that's true. And it's pretty debatable in Arafat's case as well. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:18, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Terrorism ==

It is unfortunate that the term terrorism is now used to refer to anyone out of favour with the United States, as if it were an ideology. Terrorists carry out unconventional attacks on civilians or occupying powers, which are designed to inspire fear and cause expense. Their reasoning is that the occupiers will find that the increased costs of security no longer justify their occupation, or that citizens of the occupying power will force their own government to withdraw. Some terrorists, especially crackpot groups in western countries, think that acts of terrorism will lead to armed insurrection and the overthrow of the government.

Terrorism should also be distinguished from committing atrocities, which are carried out by all military forces, even if not usually condoned.

Whatever their motives and their future actions, Castro and his followers were not terrorists, because they did not rely on terrorist tactics. They established a militia and took control of Cuba. However, if he begins to blow up government buildings, plant IEDs and wear a disguise in Cuba, then he would be a terrorist.

--[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 20:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:'''UNFORTUNATE?''' aww shucks...pity the poor terrorists....

:I block extremists who peddle nonsense and extreme views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== T-shirt image; categories ==

Categories:

Che Guevara was a Communist revolutionary. There is nothing 'liberal' about revolutionary Communism. The far left is no more 'liberal' than the far right.

Furthermore, it is not accurate to describe Che Guevara as a terrorist, any more than it would be accurate to describe those who overthrew British rule in America as 'terrorists'.

T-shirt:

The T-shirt image shown here is highly misleading, as the caption states that t-shirts bearing Che's image are highly popular. Yes, they are, but not the t-shirt shown here. The vast majority of Che t-shirts are resolutely pro-Che, and the t-shirt you show here represents a minuscule minority of t-shirts sold and as such presents an exceptionally misleading impression which would never in a million years pass muster in a credible encyclopaedia.

==Request Edit==
This page needs an update, please unblock-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:23, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

==Image==
You have no sense of humor HelpJazz. I wanted Che supporters to fume. What is sillier, the picture or believing Che is an idol?-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
:I have a sense of humor, but this is an encyclopedia not open mike night. I was going to put it back in somewhere else, but there wasn't a "criticism" section, interestingly enough. Plus, the picture that is now in front is better; instead of a joke it shows what an evil person he was. I think that hits the point home even better. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2008-12-26T04:36:27Z

NTemple:

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Cafferty==
First and foremost, I find this page utterly abhorrent and comically biased. More than a few of these are open to debate, and there are plenty of examples that aren't the responsibility of those ebul "libruls." But I digress. I don't understand the Cafferty File thing. It's quite clear that we're advancing an agenda and whining about Jack's insult to good ol' Rush, but I'm really unclear as to how this is deceit. Bad journalism? Almost definitely. But I don't see anyway to claim this is deceitful. I don't think this liberal crap has any place on CNN, but bias doesn't not deceit make. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23:35, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deceit? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|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.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)

We don't need your liberal bias here, and in any case you are compering apples with oranges. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 08:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's see, we enter a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks and yet claim they did. That's not the liberals talking, that's the CIA. We are met with hostility and yet claim that they love us. We abuse them, and yet cry when one of our guys is killed. It is never going to be well for the States in Iraq, ever.--[[User:LordKira|LordKira]] 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Deceit

2008-12-26T04:35:33Z

NTemple:

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]


==Cafferty==
First and foremost, I find this page utterly abhorrent and comically biased. More than a few of these are open to debate, and there are plenty of examples taht aren't the responsibility of those ebul "libruls." But I digress. I don't understand the Cafferty File thing. It's quite clear that we're advancing an agenda and whining about Jack's insult to good ol' Rush, but I'm really unclear as to how this is deceit. Bad journalism? Almost definitely. But I don't see anyway to claim this is deceitful. I don't think this liberal crap has any place on CNN, but bias doesn't not deceit make. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23:35, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Examples==

Do we really need this many examples of deceit? While I believe this website should present conservative values on every page, This particular page seems to be a huge political statement about how rotten the liberals are. honestly I don't think thats the best way to present conservative values. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==10 Commandments==
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Reference to the Ten Commandments is relevant to that page, not this one. Same for public schools. Deleted part about deceit not being taught in public schools. It's ridiculous to note on every page whether something is or is not taught in liberal American public schools (the list would be too long). --[[User:Ursus|Ursus]] 13:07, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Seconding Ursus' comment. Furthermore, the exclusion of the Commandments from the educational curriculum has no place in the definition of any word. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== contradiction in the definition ==

I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:

* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.

However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.

Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== Politicization ==
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.
Am I the only one who notices this? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.

: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".

: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.

:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!

:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/10-02_Core_democtaric_Values_48832_7.pdf Took about five seconds on google]... but personally I think it's a [[liberal]] scam. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:18, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Democratic Party==

[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)

*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]

Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==American Public Schools==

"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
http://www.goodcharacter.com/

*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, public schools are often known to defer to parents with the utmost of respect. Just look at sex education; that's left strictly to the parents... Do you guys really think that by parroting each other that people won't see you're talking in circles? Apply some logic - don't make up phony reasons for why it's not taught and try to convince yourselves what you made up on the spot is true. Either it's taught or it's not. In fact, here's an easy one. Find me the curriculum that states what you said. Anything along the lines of "We don't teach that deceit is wrong because that is left to the parents and takes place before youngsters enter school." Want to find just one? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::You want to apply some logic? Fine. You're committing a grievous logical fallacy in your argument; remember, '''the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.''' Do you honestly believe something as mundane as "deceit is wrong" should be a bullet point on a syllabus for a public school class? If you want to see how seriously public schools take student discipline, character, and behavior, just look at my old Code of Conduct from the JCPS: http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/Pubs/codeofconduct.pdf . '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 15:46, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, but the code of conduct is sadly what I would expect it to be - a 25 page document outlining what is not acceptable in order to close all loopholes since anything that is not outlined, could be considered acceptable. And so you have warnings not to commit arson or kidnap other students. It seems to back Andy's views more than anything else -- the common understanding of morality that used to exist is gone.

:::Getting back to the other point, you still appear to be talking in circles. You are applying the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a catch all after getting called on your last assertion which came across as made up on the spot. I somehow doubt that schools are removing information that used to be taught to give parents greater autonomy over their children's lives. Of course you can tell me that in the schools you have contact with that morality, right and wrong, and deceit are taught as an important part of the education process, but I would have to wonder if that itself wouldn't be an example of deceit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:03, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. In many public school systems, because of pressure from Conservative lobbies, parents' groups, and churches, students are not permitted to learn anything BUT absolute "right and wrong" morality. State textbook guidelines in some of the largest markets (Texas and California) mandate that stories in primary school readers are not permitted to portray children "in conflict with adults"<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375414824</ref>, facing "complicated moral problems", or issues "without a clear right or wrong answer". Liberal pressure groups insist that these lessons are presented secularly; the result (Diane Ravitch argues in the book that this post references) is a bland, Bowdlerized reading curriculum that young people find unrealistic and boring, but politically correct to suit both Liberal and Conservative censorists.

==Clinton==

Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).

Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?

== Pat Tillman example needs work ==

"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"

I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-
 
 a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".
 b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]
 c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.
 
It seems to me you're being very selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:If you're trying to make the point that liberals aren't the only deceitful people in the world, I'll agree with you. The question is: should we use breaking news for an example? That's all.

:Since you didn't jump in and help me write [[Pat Tillman]], I went ahead and did it by myself. See also [[fratricide]] and [[friendly fire]]. (You can do [[free-fire zone]] if you have time.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Another Example ==

Perhaps the works of [[Ernst Haeckel]] and his "contributions" to evolution should be considered? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that was a fraud that lasted for 100 years, long after the experts knew it was a fraud. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Catalog or informative article? ==

Is this article intended to be a catalog of acts of deceit or an article describing what deceit is? If it's the latter, then the direction of the article needs to be re-though; it's not necessary to have '''ten''' different examples of deceit to convey what deceit is. This is expressly different from [[liberal deceit]], which is actually of catalog of the subject matter. Maybe this article should be re-written to contain the "Top 3" examples that express what deceit is? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Public Schools==

I don't see how you can make the claim that public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong when a large number of students are expelled for ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [[User:Dragonmaster|Dragonmaster]] 15:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you including in your "academic dishonesty" the act of copying, word for word, a passage of text from another source without clearly demarking this passage with quotation marks? Aka [[Barker|plagiarism]]? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I busted kids left and right for that when I taught junior high. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

BTW, since when have the commandments been 'banned'? They're not publically desplayed (believe it or not, some students follow other religions), but banned? There's a bible in every library. You make it sound like crack or guns or something. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:23, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

:The issue of whether deceit is ever justified is a deep and complex one. Is "tattling" always wrong? Is to "bear false witness" wrong because it is tattling, or because it involves deceit?

:How about telling someone that a thing is okay when you know it is not, so they do it and get into trouble? We need to expand upon the ethics of truth and deceit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

This is a high-quality page. Additions to the list must be at the same quality level as existing examples. A [[liberal]] newspaper article claiming that a Republican lied about some fact doesn't cut it. Look at the examples, and please propose only additions at comparable level of significance, proof, and amount of deceit. Future reversions of low-quality examples will not be explained. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:I'm still amazed that Ted Haggard, who publicly preached against homosexuality (saying "We don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible"[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003365311_jesuscamp08.html], and the National Association of Evangelicals under his leadership found "homosexual activity, like adulterous relationships, is clearly condemned in the Scriptures"[http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=303&IDCategory=8]) led a three-year homosexual relationship with a gay prostitute, complete with the use of methamphetamine. Hmm... the leader of a national body of Christians having gay sex behind his wife's back, while preaching against those same activities seems a bit [[deceit]]ful. Oh well, I'm sure the whole thing is a big liberal conspiracy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 02:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, Pastor Haggard spoke at my friends church two weeks prior to his being "outed", and I was fortunate enough to attend. It was a special evening sermon about sexual morality, and I can tell you from personal experience that he wasn't quite fond of homosexuals. (If you don't believe me, I'd be glad to email you contact info for the church). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Well, you'll notice that we don't have Bill Clinton and "that woman" as an example either. A benchmark is usually an intentional decision to mislead for personal gain that causes hardship to others by withholding information that could have been used to make honest, informed decisions. Whether or not Haggard had homosexual tendencies is not something that had a profound impact on the American public. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:18, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's not "misleading" to preach against homosexuality to millions of people while engaging in a homosexual ''and'' adulterous relationship? As a major Christian leader, Haggard had a huge influence on the voting habits of Conservative Christians. And I'm still having trouble determining how number 11 had a profound impact on the public. And regarding Clinton, he wasn't actively speaking out against homosexuals and adulterers. Haggard was, and his platform was against homosexuality ''and'' adultery, both of which he committed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:28, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think you overestimate Haggard's influece. The Haggard example seems like a better example of hypocrisy, not deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I don't think saying that the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, who also was the pastor of a 14,000-member megachurch, and one of TIME's 25 most influential evangelicals has influence one the vote of CC's is an "overestimate". And he did deceive; he deceived his wife, his family, and his congregation. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:39, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Which sounds more like Haggard:
::::::::::*"''criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself''" from [[hypocrisy]]
::::::::::or
::::::::::*"''the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another''" from [[deceit]]? I say what he did was a better example of hypocrisy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 03:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::So people who have committed adultery shouldn't think it's wrong, or speak out against it? Sin is sin, and if we happen to fall into sin it doesn't exonerate us or mean we can no longer speak out against it. If someone is a pedophile, that person still has the right to speak out against it, and that is not deceitful. If Haggard didn't believe the practice of homosexuality was wrong, but spoke out against it, and he received financial gain for his position, then I would certainly agree with you that would be deceitful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, is AmesG ghost writing your stuff now? :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps, TK, I merely have my own viewpoints which happen to overlap with other people's in some areas. Learn together, do you think he would have been the head of the NEA if he had been preaching "homosexuality is OK"? As a mega-pastor, he received quite the salary - he was practically a celebrity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:25, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Hoji, he could have quite possibly been President of the NEA (National Education Association) preaching "homosexuality is OK", being it is the Liberal/Left Wing organization that it is, but of course he would never have been President of the Evangelical association! But it is Apples and Oranges to compare the duties and responsibilities of the President of either NEA with those of the POTUS. A logical fallacy, that makes a good "show" argument, but one that doesn't hold up. That said, I am uneasy holding people up for their personal failings in regard to such things, Even President Clinton. However one had an elected trust with the people of the United States,300,000,000 of them, the other didn't. I was bothered much more by Clinton's equivocation (actual and moral) over the meaning of the word "is" and his allowing good Citizens' reputations to be smeared along with the attendant financial ruin. I was also affronted to be told by President Clinton and his agents that I was part of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in thinking what he did was wrong. At least Jimmy Swaggart, in picking up prostitutes not even six miles from my home, didn't blame me or deny what he had been doing and ruin other people's lives in the process. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:08, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:*I don't think you'd see him preaching homosexuality is ok because he doesn't believe it. From what I could tell, his preaching matched his beliefs. Some of the most vehement anti-smoking people I know with messages of 'don't ever start' and 'I wish I could quit' are those who are hooked on cigarettes. And let's be honest here, the man was hardly Fred Phelps. Homosexuality isn't a once a week topic and it wasn't a major part of Haggard's weekly messages. I just read a 6 page interview that Christianity Today did with him in November 2005. Although it touched on a multitude of different issues and his views, the only mention of homosexuality was that Haggard supported the Court's decision in Lawrence v Texas to stay out of the private life of homosexuals. Hardly seems deceitful does it? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, I agree that number 11 should be deleted for lack of significance. I didn't insert that item. Honestly, I don't think number 10 is significant enough either, but I tried not to be heavy-handed about this.

: As to Haggard, it was a scandal but it was not "deceit" like the other examples. Maybe he was a hypocrite, but that is not "deceit" either. Perhaps the people who supported Haggard were deceived, but they are not significant in comparison to how the public was deceived in the other examples. By the way, I had never even heard of Haggard before the [[liberal]] media made this such a big deal just prior to the election. Adding Haggard to the list would require adding scores of [[liberals]] like Clinton, who pretended to have a good Christian marriage with Hillary, to the list too. That's not what this entry is about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Every single example of deceict (except maybe that Dutch art forger) is of a liberal. Every time someone posts an example of conservative decption, it's deleated, with an explanation that it's a 'scandal' or a 'lie', but not 'deception.' Isn't is slightly deceptive to only include the deceit of one side of the political spectrum? Just my two cents. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:47, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: Some [[liberals]] delight in [[deceit]], and they have succeeded in driving morality out of [[public schools]]. So it's not surprising that many major examples are about [[liberals]]. But I don't claim that "every single example" is about [[liberals]]. You seem to be drawing that conclusion.

: Provide a [[conservative]] example of similar magnitude and it will remain there. But please don't simply post a scandal that is not really deceit, or an insignificant example.

: Surely you don't expect [[deceit]] to occur as often by people who teach that it is wrong as those who don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::<s>Andy, your suggestion that all liberals practice and encourage deceit is utterly ridiculous. There are deceitful Christians, and there are deceitful conservatives. Many liberals are Christian, and many conservatives are as well. But to conflate "liberal" with "some public schools" is a pretty far stretch.
</s>::Regardless, I think the word "Watergate" sums up a very well-known example of conservative deceit. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:19, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, do you really expect [[deceit]] to be correlated precisely 50/50 among two very different groups, [[liberals]] and [[conservatives]]?

::: Let's put this a different way. Do you think people who advocate legalizing drugs have a greater percentage of drug use than people who oppose legalizing drugs? Surely you don't think that correlation is a perfect 50/50 also. And if you agree that is unlikely to be evenly split, then why the claim that deceit must be evenly split also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: The difference between your analogy and this situation is that both liberals and conservatives, by and large, teach that deceit is wrong. There aren't that many people out there (Christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, etc.) that actively advocate deceit. If I'm reading the analogy correctly (the drug-legalization advocates represent liberals, and the drug represents deceit), then this isn't congruent with the actual situation. And I've given two perfectly good examples of conservative deceit; I'm still waiting for a reply on the Watergate cover-up. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for Hoji to take back his ''all liberals practice'' comment, which comes directly after Mr. Schlafly's ''Some [[liberals]] delight''. There's a big difference between [[some]] and [[all]], well known to all intellectuals and philosophers since the time of [[Aristotle]].

After you take that back, we can progress to your next error. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:I formally retract my "all liberals practice" comment. It still seems that great lengths are being taken to keep conservatives off the list. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:54, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Hoji, how about this: people who support gun control are less likely to own guns than people who support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Agree with that? If so, then why so much protest over a similar statement about deceit? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Delete==
Since I apparently shouldn't use the <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> stub on the main page for whatever reason, I'm going to voice my opinion here that this article is counter-productive and should be deleted and re-created without bias. As it is now, it is a shining example of pure and simple hatred. Disgusting. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]]

*The above post is a shining example of useless posts. What, specifically in the article do you object to, "Doctor"? Is there some specific fact or citation you dispute? That would be helpful, and better than just a statement of opinion backed by nothing. Sort of like if I said your post was the work of a bitter, Liberal troll who is full of [[deceit]] and [[Liberal Bias]] without pointing to specifics. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:Any article that has considerable ongoing activity should not just be stamped with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> without any other comment. We try to make extensive use of the talk pages to discuss thoughts and recommendations for improvement. It is also customary to put new commentary on the bottom, not on the top. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:10, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

==Environmental hoaxes and hogwash==

Should we list or link to [[global warming]], [[ozone depletion]], etc.? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Do you really think such a large body of people made up a scientific theory to deliberately trick people? Thats the real question you should be asking. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I believe to be deceitful you would have to show that those who push GW, OD, etc are lying about it. Perhaps *some* pushers are being deceitful, but it's not a strong enough case to call all of them deceitful. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Right, that's the question. Is it a "hoax" if the people promoting it actually believe it? I would not apply the work ''hoax'' to anything other than a falsehood promoted by people who know it to be false, e.g., the theory that [[crop circles]] are mysterious, possibly supernatural or 'alien' phenomena. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:25, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well some people can really buy into those crop circles! I mean, some farmers have seen a lot of green that way... Anyway, I don't believe GW or Ozone depletion to be a hoax. I can see how people might conclude that its a flawed science, but certainly not a hoax? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate your input; it's good advice. I'll start a category for flawed science instead, maybe. Or how about [[:Category:Junk science]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:39, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:wow wow wow, thats not what I'm advising at all. How would you then go on to define a junk science? Would you base it on a flawed methodology in collecting evidence, or simply that the conclusions do not meet the answers you want them to meet? I think that is at the heart of this sort of debate. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 19:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::CP is way ahead of you: [[Junk science]] ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.

Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that [[secondhand smoke]] is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure hoax fits. A hoax has to be perpetrated by someone, but who's doing the perpetrating if not the scientists? There's also a rather high burden of proof to fit it into junk sceince, as you point out. I'm not sure we can yet match that burden. ''Politicians'', on the other hand, would fall into your pattern of "X is dangerous even if not supported by the evidence." I don't believe for one minute that scientists are engaging in any sort of this behavior, but politicians, not being educated in the material, certainly can; they don't have the technical background to know if their conclusions are supported by the evidence. In addition, it's a hot-button issue right now; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the politicians pushing global warming hysteria really don't believe it but just want the votes. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Maestro, your edits injected liberal bias, like the phone "separation of church and state" which is a liberal fiction. Your other edits also deserved reversion. Adhere to our [[rules]], please. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, what didn't you like? The fact that I mention deceit was forbidden by Islamic law? Or the way I corrected a now untrue statement about Wikipedia (they now mention in their article that the drawings are 'allegedly fraudulent'). As the article stands, it says something untrue about Wikipedia. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

I read your explanation, and I still don't get it. How is mentioning Islam a liberal bias? And liberal or not, the Wikipedia embryo article simply does not say what this article claims anymore. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Please don't discuss a content page here. The talk pages for each content page are for that purpose. Take your comments over to [[Talk:Deceit]] and I'll respond there. But don't omit how you inserted the [[liberal]] fiction "separation of church and state," as I noted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Here you go. I won't argue about church and state, and I know that mentioning Wikipedia in a less negative sense than before raises hackles here, but Islam? I'm still stumped as to how that breaks the rules. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:56, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Didn't Mohammed break his peace treaty with the Jewish tribes and attack them? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:08, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Your comment about [[Islam]] seemed unsupported and motivated by [[political correctness]]. Your statement about [[Wikipedia]] seemed false since the entry had the date of the [[liberal]] falsehood on [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Well, it's your site, your rules. I was simply trying to show how universal the rule for honesty is (and I backed it up with a quote from the Koran), but, like I said, it's your ballgame. Allah Akbar. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 20:46, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, if you can give an exact quote from the Koran about that outlawing of deceit, then that would definitely make it supported. If so, why not add it to the article? [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 15:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Once bitten, twice shy, friend. Apparently my edits were a 'pile of manure' (see below)[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::Maestro, you dumped the entire 2nd Sutra, which, after doing a search, doesn't even use the word deceit. What verse do you feel makes this point? And how does this correspond with Mohammed's later actions? You also included it along with a number of other alterations such as the "Constitutional Separation of Church and State". Guess what, if there's a rose in the middle of a pile of manure, it still gets thrown out. No one is going to do your cleaning for you. Present a polished product on its own merits and if it doesn't stick, then voice your complaints. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are we still arguing about this? I said above that you won. Drop it already.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Heading edit==

Hi. I changed a sentence in the opening header that mentions conservatives actively fighting deceit, while liberals purposely spread/encourage it. It now reads:

"Both Conservatives and Liberals at large consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, but there are claims that Liberals are more guilty of deceit than Conservatives."

I feel this is more accurate, as the original statemend suggested that each and every Liberal and Conservative were thus branded. My quote sorta smacks of overt political correctness, though, and if anybody has a better idea, please suggest/change it. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:15, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:Wonderful! They'll never allow it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
::You're right. They didn't. Good call! Now, to whomever made the edit, I posit this: one of the Conservapedia Commandments says that everything must be true and verifiable. Now to make such a sweeping statement that the "huge majority" of Liberals actively practise deceit suggests that you have numbers or a study supporting your claims. So, please cite your work. And an "examples of bias in Wikipedia" doesn't count, because WP doesn't represent liberals at large.

::Also, just nitpicking here, but the way you changed the sentence makes it so it doesn't make any sense. But since I got scolded for trying to change the article, I'll leave it up to a sysop or something.[[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 19:31, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:::TK (an admin) edited it. Such talk will ban you. But I agree, if this 'encyclopedia' is going to be anything more then a joke to the majority of the non-American-conservative world (which is about 99.1 percent of the planet), they're going to have to find a balance in their edits.--[[User:Mircofixit|Mircofixit]] 22:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== How we differ from Wikipedia ==

{{cquote|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.}}

The above section is quoted from the current version of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Under that light, I find it extremely odd to see the claims ''"Conservatives and a very small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."'' being backed up by a conservative ''commentary'' and a conservative ''column''. Also factoring in here is the hilarious issue of backing up a completely liberal-bashing claim with only conservative opinion pieces. For what it's worth, the reference might as well read "Because we say so".

This is exactly what the above difference with Wikipedia is about: You postulate an opinion as a fact (and even claim there is "substantial evidence") and then just cite conservative journalists/bloggers/commentators/columnists (or whatever they want to call themselves) who voice their opinion. And look at how unbiased they are: "So the left, led by the slimy Media Matters organization, began a counterattack using the liberals’ favorite weapon – the lie."

Fact is: The claims ("Conservatives and small minority of liberals fight it" and "evidence that liberals are more guilty") are practically impossible to prove because they're incredibly broad and would require measurements that are impossible to perform without asking God to take a look into his divine logs.

I could claim that it's exactly the other way around while citing MoveOn and Mr. Colbert, and the claim would be exactly as valid as the one we got in terms of relying on authority and good sources.

Right now, the claim should be severely rephrased to make it clear that this is an ''opinion of some conservatives''. Everything else would be pure irony: Deceit on the article about deceit. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:00, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, I've waited several days for voices of disagreement. Considering that nobody objected, I implemented a change of the form "X claims Y" to point out that the sources are biased opinion pieces instead of authority. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::It's funny how my talk page proposal stays up here for almost a week without anybody objecting, but the edit doesn't even remain intact for ten minutes.
::The claim is impossible to prove, and it's broad to the degree of being opinion (or worse: fiction). Backing it up with conservative opinions only shows that there are actually conservatives aside from the author of the claim who believe this.
::Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I'm sure that there are liberal columnists and commentators who argue that there is evidence of conservatives being more deceitful. Should I cite them as authority as it is being done with conservative columnists? No, I don't think so. Opinion pieces don't become authority just because you agree with them. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, it is a sourced claim, and what would you expect, offcourse those are conservative facts that this is based on, good luck on getting liberals to admit their deceits, and while it says "conservatives" instead of "some conservatives" it offcourse just means that most of conservatives see it this way, not necesarily all, just like you would say that Liberals are pro abortion alltho there might be some liberals who dont't feel that way. I think your addition should be reverted, in current form it sounds silly. [[User:ConanO|ConanO]] 12:39, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::::There is a claim and there are sources, but that doesn't make a sourced claim. The sources (a conservative commentary and a conservative column) show that there are conservatives who make certain claims.
::::#That conservatives consider deceit wrong.
::::#*That one is not overly bold in itself, assuming that this is just about "most" conservatives.
::::#That merely an "overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong".
::::#*How do you prove such a claim? Are there polls? Did they ask a thousand liberals if they considered deceit to be wrong? Or maybe somebody made a statistic?
::::#That "there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives"
::::#*The killer. A claim that there is evidence, but where is the evidence? Where do the sources present evidence?
::::The problem with the sources is that they simply make bold claims and attacks themselves while showcasing select examples, quite likely with their own spin to them. Okay, sure, that's what comments and columns are free to do, I figure, but that doesn't change that these are ''opinions'', not authority. For bold claims like these, we need the latter, not the former.
::::Here, let me illustrate my point with "The Conservative Voice" source from our paragraph in question. Would you seriously put this into CP's [[Liberal]] article:
{{cquote|Today's liberals are intellectual terrorists who try to destroy free speech. Instead of fairness, facts, and logic, they use lies and personal attacks to attack those who want to exercise their Freedom of Speech.[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html]}}
::::See? A claim and a source. However, it simply repeats opinion as fact and thus doesn't belong into an encyclopedia article. The source is not authority, and there are no facts given to back his claims and accusations. It's a "Because he said so" situation.
::::You said it yourself: It's highly unlikely that thousands of liberals suddenly step forward and admit that they used deceit. Likewise, it's unlikely that thousands of conservatives would do that. What does this mean? Liberals deny their deceit while conservatives don't use deceit? Both sides deny it? Liberals don't do it, but conservatives deny it? Neither side uses it? That's what I meant when I said that the claim is practically impossible to prove in the form that had been there. You can give examples for either side using deceit, and you can point at people who agree with the claim, but you can't make calls like "that side does it more" based on this. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:19, 11 October 2007
(EDT)

We don't need your liberal bias here, and in any case you are compering apples with oranges. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 08:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

==Read My Lips==

How about Bush, Sr's, famous 'Read my lips, no new taxes' pledge while campaigning, only to raise taxes as president? Surely that was decption? [[User:Monitor|Monitor]] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Do you have evidence that he was intending tax hikes when he was campaigning as opposed to shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities? [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 13:02, 8 November 2007 (EST)

As a former vice president, director of the CIA, and ambassador, I'm pretty sure that he was aware that fiscal realities can change. He was also aware that Americans wanted a candidate who would promise not to lower taxes, something Dukakis was not willing to promise. Bush looked America in the eye and said he wouldn't raise taxes. This helped him get elected. I'm sure it didn't make him happy when he was forced to raise them, but he was not a dumb man. He promised 'no new taxes,' while he was well aware they might be required. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

So then your answer is "no." [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 18:03, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Right, Dewey. After Bush made that promise, the [[Democrats]] who controlled [[Congress]] becamed determined to force Bush to break the promise. That's not deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:Do you have evidence that congress was determined to force Bush to break the promise, or was this an example of 'shifting policies to deal with new fiscal realities' if I may quote? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 07:35, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Haeckel fraud exposed by Behe &Jonathan Wells in 2000 ==

It appears it is likely that the Haeckel fraud was exposed to the general public by the New York Times in 2000 vis a vis Michael Behe. It also appears as if Stephen Jay Gould was not happy Gould did this. However, I do know also that [[Jonathan Wells]] also exposed the fraud to the public with his publication of the book Icons of Evolution in 2000. Please see: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf It appears though the scientists knew it earlier:
:Adam Sedgwick, 1894
:William Garstang, 1922
:Gavin de Beer, 1958
:William Ballard, 1976
:Stephen J. Gould, 1977
:Richard Elinson, 1987
:Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
:Michael Richardson, 1995
:Stephen J. Gould, 2000 [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php]

So it appears as if the deceit article is errant and the NYT or Wells exposed the fraud to the general public in 2000 unless the author of the Dec 2000/Jan 2001 article is referring to 1999 which is doubtful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Broken source link==
Source #6 is a dead link and needs to be updated or removed, even so it appears to be a transcript from a talk show which is not an ideal source, actual data is preferred. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 17:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

==I am officially leaving this website after reading this==

As the title would suggest, I am leaving this website because of this article, but not exclusively so. This article is an example of mindless hatred, lack of understanding and common human decency towards those of opposite political persuasions. You claim to be Christian Conservatives - do you even know what it means to be a Christian? Honestly, some of you would prefer spending time at a rally denying basic rights to homosexuals than time spent in a homeless shelter. I will pray for the makers of this article, and will continue to pray for the poor souls who get caught up in your immoral (Amoral) propaganda. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: Usually the [[Parthian Shots]] do better than that, "ModerateCatholic". For example, usually disgruntled users cite something more specific than vague rants. But suit yourself, and please use your real first name if and when you return. May I recommend [[liberal]] [[Wikipedia]] for you in the meantime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I will pray for you especially, you poor misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:P.S- Is the use of the term 'Parthian Shots' a way and means for you to divert accountability for your crimes? Throwing around the term 'Liberal Wikipedia' is another example of your uncontrollable hatred. There will be a home for you in the fiery pits of hell, unless you repent. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

ModCath seems to be a poorly executed caricature. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pathetic Rubbish ==

There is absolutely no reason for the continued inclusion of this tripe in the article:

{{cquote|[[Deceit]] plays a central role promoting the [[liberal]] belief system with the public, as illustrated by most examples below. Many [[liberals]] promote [[deceit]] if it advances their goals.}}

It adds nothing, and is symptomatic of an abject failure to be able to make any points besides unsubstantiated insults. The insistence of even lower-echelon editors attempting to retain it is simply servile sycophancy. Material such as this reflects abominably upon this site, and unless you desire to demonstrate that this reflection is, in fact, not simply illusory, but indicative of a reality, I suggest that it be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 22:46, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: "SimonA" (unlikely your real name), obviously many [[liberals]] do use [[deceit]] to advance their goals, and they are very good at it. The entry here on [[deceit]] provides numerous important examples of this. There is no doubting these examples. They were perpetrated by [[liberals]]. Feel free to try to fool users of [[Wikipedia]], but we're not fooled here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::I think Simon's point is that disingenuous people from all over the political spectrum have used deceit to achieve their goals - for every Stalin, there is a Hitler; for every Castro there is a Bush. Singling out 'liberals' as predisposed liars does not make for a particularly instructive exercise. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:03, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: The point is simple: A: A list compiled by an encyclopædia that bills itself as "Conservapedia" is unlikely to contain any information that would be particularly damaging to Conservatives, ergo, the list here is not valid evidence. B: A list of 13, perhaps dubious, examples of deceit perpetrated by liberals is not sufficient evidence for a generalization of the type made, especially given the fact that the examples pertain only to an extremely small subset of the liberal population. C: Compiling a list of 13 examples of conservative deceit would not be particularly difficult. Would such a production be valid to make a generalization stating that deceit was necessary in conservative propaganda? The answer is obvious.

:: The point is that such a passage is the argumentative equivalent of kicking someone in a sensitive area. I see no reason why it should not be removed. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:16, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::: Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals. You couldn't come close to 13 examples of significant [[deceit]] advanced -- and embraced -- by [[conservatives]]. Note how many of the examples of [[liberal]] [[deceit]] continued to be embraced by other [[liberals]] who recognized the [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:::: "Many [[liberals]] don't even accept the [[Ten Commandments]], let alone think that [[deceit]] is wrong to advance their goals." Entirely tangent. I'm sure many conservatives don't, as well.
:::: And I'm sure that I could. You would just have to look at Jack Chick's web site to get about 10. --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 23:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Andy,

My point, as well as Simon's here is that there are 'bad people' on both sides of the spectrum. With this list you are childishly saying 'Liberals are bad, Conservatives are good'. Deceit exists all over the spectrum, from people of faith to none, and from Liberals to Conservatives. Your 'examples' are taken from a tiny minority of high profile Liberals, but if someone were to add a conservative example (Such as the homosexual senator who was rampantly anti-gay rights but did things to men in toilets) you would call it, 'Liberal Lies' or whatever. Again, as I have said before, I will pray for you. You really are a unfortunate misguided soul. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

P.S- Where I come from the labels 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are meaningless. Politics is not motivated by ideology whatsoever - all parties are pragmatic centralists. Calling me Liberal as a result of ''disagreeing with you'' is not only intellectual cowardice its simply rude. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:02, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: You're wrong. [[Liberals]] often reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and [[liberals]] use [[deceit]] far more than [[conservatives]] do. The list proves it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:04, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: Ah. I'm sorry, I thought ModerateCatholic offered a compelling argument based on everyday experience and the last two hundred years of history. Thanks for the heads-up. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 01:10, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The list doesn't prove anything! This is like talking to a ten year old child, honestly. Just keep your hands firmly around your ears and don't allow anything to get in other than stuff you completely and utterly agree with. Thank God I've more faith in the American people, because you would make me hate my own kind. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 09:13, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: About 90% of your edits are talk, talk, talk, in the typical [[liberal style]]. You're in violation of our [[rules]] and your petty namecalling pollutes the site. Last chance for you to convey some knowledge here. Use it or goodbye.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:OK then. Can you please explain to me the logical basis for your entry in this article? Why have you not included isolated examples of conservative deceit also? Its anti-Academic to do what you have done. 'Typical Liberal Style' - Why don't you grow up. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 10:15, 31 December 2007 (EST)

==Liberals and Deceit==

The sentence at the beginning of the article, saying that liberals engage in deceit but not mentioning conservatives, implies that only liberals deceive. This is clearly absurd, and the "references" seem to be opinion pieces by conservatives. I am new to this website, but I don't see how this article can possibly be useful... isn't this saying that conservatives never deceive, which is clearly not true? I edited this, but someone changed it back without replying to what I said when I changed it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:18, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:Don't remove sections of this article because you disagree with them. Remember, this is a conservative site and you're not allowed to change it to a NPOV. This is not Wikipedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:26, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm sorry, as I said, I am new. I thought people were supposed to edit in factual information from a conservative viewpoint, which makes sense to me. But you didn't address what I said... do you think the assertion in the article is true, that only liberals deceive? I am a conservative, and I am not perfect... I am sure I have deceived someone at some point. Haven't you? This article doesn't seem informative really, but more like just an attack. Am I misunderstanding something?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:31, 15 February 2008 (EST)
:::This article is not about me or other conservatives. This article is about liberals who deceive and the examples are very informative. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 02:38, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::I would understand that, but it's just called "deceit", not "liberal deceit", right? Is there some portion of the code or something that I screwed up? It looks like it's just "deceit."--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 02:45, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::You locked the page without replying. It seems like you're actively trying to keep the page this way, but can't really defend the assertion that only liberals deceive. I came to this site because I was not interested in the little vendettas and biases on Wikipedia, but I guess now I see that there is good reason for Wikipedia policies... I regret having helped make a new article with a substantive nature here before discovering that you guys are only interested in being just as bad as the liberals.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Nobody said that ''only'' [[liberals]] deceive, but the [[liberal]] ideology does permit and encourage deceit. Regardless, I've unlocked the page for you but will re-protect it if edits do not comply with the [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::::::My point was that there was an obvious implication by only naming liberals. It would be like saying Saudi Arabians attacked the two towers on 9-11, without mentioning the other nationalities. The implication is one of exclusivity. But thank you for unlocking it, I am glad that we're interested in being unbiased and not pulling a "lib" :)--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 21:41, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:::Well, [[liberals|who]] do you think are the ones always engaging in [[deceit]]? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 02:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::Except that, as I mentioned earlier, it seems pretty silly to claim only liberals deceive. Conservatives are only human too, even if in general more level-headed. I mean, take the recent sex scandals in the House. There was one Republican with pretty good policies who was hitting on a congressional page. I don't remember his name, but that was fairly strong evidence of deceit. I think he had a wife! So I mean, obviously conservatives sometimes deceive, but this article implies that only liberals do. We want to be conservative, but not just LIE, right?--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

It was Mark Foley, a Republican in the House.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:...but do you see any examples of [[conservative]] [[deceit]] on this page? Why do you think that is? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 03:19, 15 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't understand. Are you implying that the page IS an example of conservative deceit? If that is the case, I respectfully have to state that I think that is a very poor decision, to knowingly deceive impressionable young people who might go to this page. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 03:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:::No, I was just speculating is all. Draw whatever conclusions you like from the article. Also: in general, be careful. You wouldn't want accused to be accusing Conservapedia of [[deceit]], because that is a very [[deceit|deceitful]], [[liberal]] thing to do! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::::But I think Conservapedia IS being deceitful, and I'm not a liberal! This is absurd! It's like an article on cyanide stating, "Liberals have often used cyanide as a murder tool", without mentioning conservatives... the clear implication is that liberals either use cyanide or murder, not conservatives. This is just silly... God created man as imperfect, to declare otherwise is simply hubris and pagan. I am going to change it.--[[User:GGgg|GGgg]] 18:48, 15 February 2008 (EST)

(undent) Interesting discussion! I have just come across the [[Deceit]] page for the first time, and found such an obviously absurd suggestion that it is only liberals who deceive that I felt moved to change it. Which I did, before I came to this page! I see I am not the only one who thinks the wording was silly. Do yourselves/us/your readers a favor, and don't take us for complete idiots. It is patently absurd to suggest that liberals have a monopoly on deceit. By all means use liberal examples, in tune with the proudly acknowledged Conservapedia viewpoint, but don't make the site laughable by appearing to say that only liberals deceive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Piltdown Man ==

Piltdown Man was indeed a deceit, but the continued use of it as an example in the teaching of evolution was not. It was a mistake made by the ''victims'' of the deceit, not a continuation of the deceit by the ''deceivers''. The statement that "evolutionists continued this deceit for decades" is seriously misleading and should be deleted or amended. I suggest a rewrite as follows: 

The [[Piltdown Man]] was a fraudulent "Missing Link" taught to an entire generation of students worldwide from 1912 to 1953 as "proof" that man had evolved from an ape-like species. <s>Darwinists officially declared</s> The Piltdown Man was declared to be authentic and <s>gave it</s> given a formal name: ''Eoanthropus dawsoni,'' in honor of the person who claimed to have found it, Charles Dawson. The British scientific establishment largely supported the validity of Piltdown Man.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tenness5.html</ref> But the Piltdown Man was actually a medieval skull combined with a lower jaw from an orangutan and teeth from a chimpanzee, which were then placed in a gravel pit in the village of Piltdown, England. There are reports that as early as 1914 someone at the British Museum privately admitted that "a negro skull and a broken ape jaw" had been "artificially fossilized."<ref>http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_prim_suspects/KEITH/Keith_prosecution/piltdown_unmasked.html</ref> <s>Yet evolutionists continued this deceit</s> Yet this fraud maintained currency for decades, <s>teaching it</s> in textbooks (e.g., the text at issue in the [[Scopes trial]] in 1925) <s>and publicizing it</s> as well as in popular books and magazines (e.g., a 1922 book for the general market illustrated the daily life of the Piltdown Man). <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02561355&id=L0sDgL6sPh4C&pg=RA1-PR51 ''Everyday Life in the Old Stone Age''], Charles Henry Bourne Quennell, 1922, p. 51.</ref>

: What is the specific part of it you propose changing, and why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:20, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::Reasons as stated. Proposed changes as shown above. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:42, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:::Interested, but not surprised, to see that my correction of the inaccuracy in the article has been swiftly reverted. I take it, then, that you disagree with my point that the perpetation of the fraud was an error, not a deliberate deceit! I tried to raise it here, and when nobody disagreed with me I thought perhaps I might be so bold... I should clearly have known better! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:04, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I didn't revert your change, and apologize for not responding here sooner. I don't see how you can disagree with my changes. Large-scale deceit always has perpetrators and accomplices, plus [[deliberate ignorance]]. Surely you don't doubt that the [[Piltdown Man]] had all three among [[evolution]]ists?!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Well, yes, I do doubt that - but I am well aware that I won't win any such argument in this forum, so I'll leave it at that! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: [[Logic]] is welcome here, Humblpi. It's a bit of cop-out for someone to say (as we often hear) that he can't win. If you make a logical argument, you will win here. But there is no logic in insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by [[evolutionists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::You accuse me of "insisting that the crude fraud of the [[Piltdown Man]] was somehow not perpetrated by evolutionists." That is not what I said. Of course the Piltdown fraud was perpetrated by "evolutionists". My point is that the ''perpetuation'' of that fraud was not a plot (and therefore not directly a deceit) but an ''error''. Those who committed the initial fraud were guilty of deceit; those who perpetuated it were not - they were ''victims'' of the fraud, not perpetrators of it. That's all, and I suggested a small change to the article to make that clearer. But you have seen fit to change it back to a twisted version of the truth. It's your website. I leave it there. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The list is [[deceit]]. They are mostly [[liberal]] but that's not our fault. If you have comparable examples of [[deceit]] accepted and promoted by [[conservatives]], then let's see them here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:54, 1 March 2008 (EST)

What would be the point , you`l only revert them .--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:06, 1 March 2008 (EST)

: That's called a "cop-out". If you have examples, let's see them here. If you don't, please don't pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)

But lets be serious your not actually suggesting that conservatives have never been deceitfull have you. What about president nixon. Is he not deceitful. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 13:28, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Former President Nixon was not a conservative, and it is an affront to suggest that. Nixon was a Keynesian (A soft term to describe a socialist) who radically increased spending on social programmes and 'normalised' relations with communist nations. He was a Liberal. [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 11:15, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: That's right. By 1972 -- before [[Nixon]]'s cover-up of [[Watergate]], [[conservatives]] were so opposed to Nixon that [[conservatives]] actually tried to defeat him in the [[Republican]] primary by backing [[John Ashbrook]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

SO , the fact of the matter is that he was still a deceitful person, so therefore we should include it. His behaviour was deceitful , he is deceitful , you cant change that. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:10, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Oh yes thats it any conservative that commits deceit is actually a liberal , lol , therefore it becomes liberal deceit, it doesnt even matter , as the topic is called deciet its ok to but nixon their. People can decide for themselves weither or not he is a liberal. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:13, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:To some degree that's actually true - since [[conservative]]s, and especially Christian conservative values, adheres more to the moral principles of the Bible that explicitly forbids deceit, then one who deceives is not acting like a true conservative would. [[Liberal]]s, on the other hand, does not even seem to try to maintain a moral code.
:Nevertheless, slandering Nixon is inappropriate for this page. Just because it is true does not make it relevant here. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 19:25, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Enron... Nixon... ==

I can hardly think of two more obvious examples of deceit. Why do Nixon and Enron get removed? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:44, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:I suppose that, as explained above, they're not really ''true'' conservatives. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:57, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::For that matter, shouldn't people like [[Jim & Tammy Bakker]] and [[Jimmy Swaggart]] be added to the list? I would have thought they are prime examples of deceit. I'm sure there's more, but those are the only two that come to mind right now.[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 13:46, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:::IIRC, the made mistakes and were repentant for those errors. [[Liberals]] deny that they have sinned, and deny their [[deceit]]. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 13:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.

Keep trying, guys, but you'll have to look a very long time to find just one example of embraced deceit by a [[conservative]] against the numerous examples of [[liberal]] deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:Nixon said, "I am not a crook," and defended his own deceit. How is that not "embraced"? Enron executives maintained their innocence all the way through the trial. How are they not similarly embracing deceit? Perhaps your definition of "embraced deceit" is such a moving target as to become meaningless.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::So by your own definition ("The [[deceit]] in this list is typically ''embraced'' deceit, and run-of-the-mill political lies or fraud are not included.") Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al are guilty of deceit, given the way they fervently embraced (and haven't repented for) the deceit surrounding Weapons of Mass Destruction? It's a bit disingenuous to tweak the definition every time a name crops up that you wouldn't like to see in the list. Likewise, I can't see how Reagan's deceit surrounding Iran-Contra can be classed as run-of-the-mill political lies. That also seems to imply that you're willing to accept a politician who lies to you, in a run of the mill way?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Perhaps you also think it was [[deceit]] for Bush to claim to have won the 2000 election?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: Why would I think that? True, it did get messy before the final result was announced, but that was as much Gore's fault as anything. At the end of the day the candidate with the most votes won, fair and square. Now, snide remarks aside, shall we get back on topic?[[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 15:51, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::: Uh oh, you'd better watch yourself, or you won't have any [[liberal friendship|liberal friends]] any more. ''Gore won the most votes, not Bush!''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

<-- Steering back on track, we have two examples that need to be considered:
* Nixon stating "I am not a crook" and then defending this statement
* Bush stating there were WMD's without evidence, and continuing this belief

I know nothing about the first, and not as much as others about the second. As for Bush winning the 2000 election, this has nothing to do with deceit, and instead with the American election system. Bush did not win because he lied about the outcome. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:08, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Bush still claims he won in 2000. Some liberals would say this deceit has been going on for nearly 8 years. Do you think we should include that also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:17, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::Of course not. He won. No deceit involved. Whereas Nixon clearly exemplifies "embraced deceit". I now understand why Enron has been deleted, given that it was a case of simple deceit in the form of theft, not an attempt to influence people's political opinions etc. But surely Nixon... [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::Bush ''did'' win in 2000, even though he still got less votes the way the American political system is structured allowed him to claim victory. While some extreme leftists may view this as deceit, others view it as a reason to change rather than an example of a blatant lie. I don't think anyone here is actually claiming Bush winning the election was an example of deceit, perhaps we could concentrate on the two issues others have raised. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 16:22, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::: OK, then why the obsession with Nixon? Clinton lied and was impeached. We haven't included him, why do you think there was [[embraced deceit]] by Nixon that is so much stronger than Clinton's?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:::::(speaking just for myself, obviously) - I am not obsessed with Nixon, but he was once mentioned on the site and was deleted, and I queried the reason for that deletion. As far as I am aware (I haven't checked all the page history) Clinton has never made an appearance here. I am arguing against the removal of Nixon, not against the addition of Clinton. Adding Clinton might indeed be appropriate, for sure. And no doubt many other politicians of all political hues and persuasions. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:32, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Any standard used on Nixon would create a horde of politicians who could be included as well. The key is to find behavior that is out of the ordinary so as to set the actions of the individual apart from his peers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:44, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You all seem to be forgetting something. The list says deceit, therfore any1 can be put on it including nixon. If you want it to only be an article on liberals have the guts to call it liberal deceit. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 17:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:I seem to recall it used to be called [[Liberal deceit]], but they changed it because some vandals and malcontents kept saying there should be an article for [[Conservative deceit]]. They failed to understand that [[Real Conservatives]] never lie. It's just that occasionally their true statements are non-operative in the reality-based community world at this point in time fnord.
:I've taken the liberty of adding [[Scooter Libby]] to the list. If a conviction for perjury doesn't qualify as Deceit, I'm curious what does. (oh, yeah--ANYTHING a Liberal says.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:42, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Not all convictions are necessarily just, and this one was particularly controversial. You are right however that perjury qualifies as deciet. However, I think it is best to stick to more widely accepted examples. I'm moving the scooter libby example to the talk page for further discussion. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly there are several other controversial examples on te page. I'll see what I can do about them. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 12:52, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

on second thought, the current examples are pretty good. However you may feel free to suggest any examples that you think are appropriate. Personaly I have nothing against exposing non-liberal deciet. I don't approve of deciet in general. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Umm, right ==

This article is stupid. Instead of actually giving information about deceit it just lists heaps of people who are apparently evil liberal liars. Why not actually provide information (like encyclopedias should) rather than listing "examples".

If the admins of this place want it to replace Wikipedia as the Internets main source of info, a good way to start would be to actually provide information. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fred, try opening your mind a bit and recognize the well-documented cases of [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I would like to insult you for your supposedly "open minded" idea of deceit, but I won't.
I'm just saying, rather than listing supposed cases of deciet, shoulden't an encyclopedia describe what deciet is and explain why and how it is used rather than just saying "all these things are eebul liberal lies!!11!" Examples are good, but they should not be the main part of an article on an encyclopedia. [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

As no one's replying, can I assume its ok for me to start drafting a replacement article with more emphasis on explaining dicete rather than exposing "eebul liberal lies!!11!" [[User:Fred59|Fred59]] 23:59, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

==Scooter Libby==

This example has been suggested. please discuss.

# [[Scooter Libby]], convicted in court of Obstruction of Justice, Making a False Statement, and [Perjury]], for intentionally deceiving the grand jury about how he learned, and “disclosed to the media,” information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA.

::Yes, that's deceit all right! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Sounds good to ME, but I'm the one who posted it, so I'm biased. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:36, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: There is no end to the list if we start posting political figures. There were many convictions among Clinton cronies also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:45, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

==Examples of deceit==

I realize that this page contains many true and valid example's of deciet, however i don't see how such a list is what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. I think this list has only proved itself a can of worms. I say we only include a description of what deciet is and perhaps one or to more classical examples of deciet such as ananias and saphira. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Large laundry lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Encyclopedia's and all reference works, can teach not only by defining a term, but showing it as well. There is an old rhyme about how a person would rather see a sermon, than hear one. By not only defining the term, but providing examples and comparisons, the job this ''conservative encyclopedia'' does is greatly improved, IMO. I do realize that to many in today's world, it seems "out of step" in a society where teaching "right" and "wrong" is held to be archaic. Remember fine counsel is often confused, but examples are always clear! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::So you agree with Ben (and I) then? I think a few in-depth, well known examples would be much more beneficial to ''any encyclopedia'' that what we have now. Deceit is a pretty simple concept, why explain it with 15 examples? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:16, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We disfavor deleting information unless a [[rule]] violation is identified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

HelpJazz, I was saying just the opposite of what you (apparently) were saying. That good examples, which actually demonstrate, are a far better learning aid than just a litany of "facts". I would note that it appears many are overly concerned, ''albeit perhaps a well intentioned concern'', with truncating articles in CP that are "uncomfortable" to some in their uncompromising examples of [[liberal deceit]]. We see that in many places today, a few seeking to redefine, blur or minimize anything that points out uncomfortable facts about the left, and liberals in particular. Why even a factual statement about liberal thinking is branded by some now as ''ad hominem arguments'', which seems to be a new phrase introduced to truncate any and all discussion or disagreement with liberals! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't say anything about being uncomfortable, liberal deceit, minimizing criticism of the left, or ad hominem arguments, so I'll just address the relevant portion of your post.
:We are obviously both in agreement (along with Ben, who started this thread) that examples can help explain a concept. I love examples, and try to add them to new articles I create. But don't you agree that a couple of good, solid examples are better than a list of every example we can find? I think this is a more concise and more informative way to make an encyclopedia entry.
:Deceit is a simple concept; at some point all these examples stop being about deceit and start being about denegrating those who are being used as examples (both liberals AND conservatives, as can be seen in the suggestion in the section below). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think I have dealt with the latest twist in liberals trying to shut down discussion by claiming "ad hominem arguments" elsewhere. That argument (liberal fact) is rejected by conservatives outright, and as this is a conservative wiki, has no place here. If you need the link, I think I can find it.

::As for the idea of using fewer examples, I think Andy Schlafly succinctly answered that no, removal of examples showing liberal deceit/bias is not favored. No caveats were provided, correct? I do however think such articles could stand formatting and stylistic improvement, making them easier to read, and highlighting salient points in an improved way. I stand ready to assist anyone wanting to improve Conservapedia's articles, by offering suggestions/examples/ideas as to what is acceptable to conservatives and what is not. Ed Poor, Karajou, Crocotite, Conservative, TerryH and Andy himself are a few others I know who are qualified to provide that information. If someone feels unfairly excluded, please forgive an older person a lapse in memory or familiarity with their work. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

=="The War in Iraq Is Going Well"==
Isn't that a form of embraced deceit? It's clearly ''not'' going well, and yet the Bush administration refuses to backtrack from its original position, that the war would be and essentially was won in a matter of days. We all know that's false now. Why do they not come out and say it?-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

: Politics is filled with issues like that. There are just as many -- if not more -- examples on the Democratic side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::True. It's no secret that politics is dirty on all sides. But if your goal with this article is to prove that no conservatives ever embrace deceit, then, I think this example should be included. Feel free to stack in as many other examples of Democrats doing the same thing as you want.-[[User:Historian|Historian]] 16:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So what? We don't let Charles Manson out of jail just because Pol Pot killed more people, and misdeeds by Democrats '''DO NOT EXCUSE misdeeds by Republicans'''. If you seriously want people to believe that Conservatives have higher moral standards than Liberals, then giving "your" "side" a free pass when they've verifiably done something egregious does not help your case. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:01, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::"Going well" as compared to what? The Iraq situation, as compared to the more rampant random violence of months ago, is going better. The "surge", whatever one wants to call it, has improved security, and has been admitted so doing by even former Generals and the like who opposed the war. So clearly saying that isn't a deceit, as measured by military experts, not civilians. Let's not intertwine arguments for or against the American police actions in going into Iraq, or the failings of the democratically elected government of Iraq, with the much narrower discussion about the "surge". And, I think someone needs to reaffirm what Andy just posted above: Someone citing what they believe to be a deceit, doesn't negate or disprove another. Therefore, the entire purpose of the post above, has no basis in logic, and appears to be yet another argumentative ''Red Herring'', something thrown out for just the sake of argument, when that is something more appropriate for a ''Discussion Group or Board'', but does nothing to add content to an encyclopedia project. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:24, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::::there is a very large diffrence between going well, and going better. your argument is like saying that since someone in a hospital is dying slower, they are doing well. and the refrence point should be... compared to just after we won the actual war (with the army) in iraq-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's see, we enter a country that had no connection to the 9/11 attacks and yet claim they did. That's not the liberals talking, that's the CIA. We are met with hostility and yet claim that they love us. We abuse them, and yet cry when one of our guys is killed. It is never going to be well for the States in Iraq, ever.--[[User:LordKira|LordKira]] 21:32, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." ==

I beg your pardon? Is there any evidence for this outrageous statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:The [[burden of proof]] is on you, and it should be a light one if you have an example in mind already. "I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::Er, that's not true. The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the statement, in this case [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]].

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's what I just said: H made the claim that the statement is outrageous and so the burden of proof is upon him. Do I have to make it a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::The burden of proof is on the person who posts the statement in the article, not on the one who queries it on a talk page. I refer you to Commandments #1 and #5 - the article should ''not be personal opinion'', and it should ''be verifiable''. So it's not me that needs the writing assignment. I agree that the word "outrageous" was an expression of my personal opinion, but that is expressly allowed on a talk page (Commandment #5). If it helps, though, I'll happily withdraw it: "Public schools, in contrast, do not teach that deceit is wrong." Is there any evidence for this <s>outrageous</s> statement? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:16, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::: BenjaminS claims it to be fact, AND since everything here must be VERIFIED, it is upon Benny to prove that his broad accusation has merit. As far as disproving it, I ask all public-school educated people to remember the time their first grade teacher taught them that lying is bad.
:::PBS (PUBLIC broadcasting) does teach this with the help of the good monsters of Sesame Street (I remember it back when it used to be a good neighborhood). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 13:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Frankly, I prefer Ed's guideline. Not requiring proof of a factual assertion, and instead putting the burden on any naysayers to disprove a fact, will make writing articles much easier.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:00, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Is that a joke? Seriously, that's the worst methodology I've ever heard of. I'm going to go start an entry about the real-life Mighty Morphin Power Rangers which live on another planet at the other end of the galaxy. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:37, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Aschafly, you've reverted Lib1089's deletion of the sentence without adding any additional information. This is made worse because he expressly cited Conservapedia's first commandment in his edit summary: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". You've run roughshod over that. Please reconsider your edit and either revert it or add information that substantiates the claim. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Still awaiting a citation, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps my public school system was more conservative than most, but we most certainly were taught that deceit was wrong. In an academic setting, that of course took the form of bans on plagiarism and cheating, which were expressly forbidden, as I imagine they are at most any public school. I would also think that some public schools have honor codes, much like the liberal elite universities all do, that stress honesty and integrity. Finally, there is no evidence that public schools specifically condone deceit, is there? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I just removed that statement. I'm a bit new here but I'm assuming that a statement of that magnitude, not backed up with any references, is an act of vandalism. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Boris Johnson==
Aschlalfy, you have twice reverted factual, sourced, material about Boris Johnson. Why? I didnt state he was conservative so you cant say I was trying to smear conservatives. You will notice his mistress had an abortion to rid themselves of a potentially embarrasing love child. How is this not deceit?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:57, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Al Gore ==
Took this one out because there was no evidence of deceit, just factual inaccuracy. Gore botched more than a few facts in that film, but there's no reason to chalk that up to anything more than his incompetence. Although, if you can prove an intent to deceive, then by all means, please revert. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 00:00, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Richard Nixon==
Added a rather obvious example. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==M Scott Peck==
I removed his book from the further reading list because it is not about deceit as such, but about psycopathy (Evil, in common parlance). [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 10:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon, Libby, and Enron ==

What specifically about those named above and their actions qualifies them as not being deceitful? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: One-sided and opinionated examples of alleged deceit by a president or corporation do not have sufficient quality to be included in this high-quality entry, which typically consisted of significant, prolonged, embraced and admitted or proven deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
::I think Nixon's deceit was significant and prolonged. Libby was significant simply for being a high-profile person, and his deceit was prolonged. And Enron's deceit was very significant, costing hundreds of people their savings. All three had their deceit proven in one way or another. It's pretty deceitful to claim otherwise. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:...is it because they're not liberal...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:I was about to post here yesterday, but I had just added the entires in question back and [[User:Bugler]] blocked me for it. The answer is that yes, of course, you will find as you continue to edit this 'encyclopedia' that examples of conservative deceit are not allowed. What I recommend is browing the edit list of [[User:Aschlafly]]. He's the owner and founder and essentially disagreeing with him is a sin. If you like that idea feel free to stick around.
:Of course, it's a blatant disregarding of the principles of Conservapedia (see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]) but hey, he's in charge. What are you going to do? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Could the Bush administrations false statements be counted as deceit? [[User:Ekeegan]]

==Public school deceit==
It's not a required course, but in "Journalism" students were taught about the evils of slander, deceit, and malice. your apathetic neighborhood public schooler [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 16:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==Inherit the Wind==

LearnTogether, unless you have a reference showing where Inherit the Wind is shown in public school science classes, my removal of that entry should stand. I studied it in ''Drama'' in high school, and even in that context it was never presented as "science" or the reality of the Scopes trial. In fact, the teacher used that play as an example of drama based on (then) recent events to attract interest, much as the ''Law & Order'' episodes that are "Torn from the headlines" do today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 08:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:My high school showed it in science class. In discussions in college with cross sections of students from across the United States, their experiences had been the same. Recent discussions on debate boards left current high school students amazed when I pointed out to them just how far apart the movie was from the reality of the event, a film they had just seen in their science classes. I am glad your school was more enlightened. Many are not. It stays. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:51, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Wow, that's sad that your school and others did that (and ironic, because mine was in "Liberal" NYC). I'm not going to challenge your anecdotal evidence, but maybe a reference could be added to state that "This occurred in XYZ H.S. in NameOfState during the 19xx's, and in several other public high schools based on discussions with college students at ABC University in the 19xx's".

::Also, I'd ask that you change the following, "Both completely lied about the facts in order to harm Christianity, misleading students who read or enact the play and everyone who saw the movie.", to something like "The changes in dramatizing the story altered significant facts, misleading students who relied on the film or play as their sole reference for what happened in the actual Scopes trial." Unless you have a valid source that shows the intent of the dramatic changes was to purposefully harm Christianity, then that's just an opinion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:35, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==John Edwards==

Should lying about his affair go here? On the one hand, he's certainly a liberal, and it's certainly deceit; on the other hand, a lot of people would likely argue that it's part of a larger pattern of dishonesty among politicians in general ("Never admit to wrongdoing unless you have no choice.")--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:44, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Changes ==

Alright so I did some editing for the sake of clarification (morally wrong has much stronger connotations than simply wrong, which can be argued as to having varying degrees of severity).

Also you ought add more historical information, Plato comes to mind as they dealt with the art of sophistry fairly regularly.

I removed the comment about public schools, not necessarily because I disagree with it, but more because it was out of place and lacked any context. Indeed, secular institutions don't teach morality (a non-secular entity) unless you take a class on the subject, but even then it is conducted more in an informative matter than anything else (students are nto expected to take a stance on the issue).

Some of the examples (such as Al Gore) aren't wrong really, Gore believes some dumb things, yet deceit carries with it the connotation of WILLFULLY professing untrue things. Indeed, striking as it is, people do not have a habit of professing things they do not actually believe. Other examples could use some sources, such as the ending sentence about liberal endorsement of lying: people /were/ angry about his behavior, but they also got over it. This is not the same thing as being ok with lying.

I won't touch the scopes monkey trial example, though I will say you need some pretty concrete sources for those assertions: just because something is made to look bad doesn't mean that was intentional, sometimes the facts are arranged and interpreted incorrectly due to error and misunderstanding, not because someone is out to get you.

Otherwise this article needs some work: I suggest expanding the example section to include more historical examples of deceit, a section dedicated to analyzing the moral implications of deceit, and perhaps more about deceit from a Biblical perspective. That's all I can think of now, but I am sure there is more we can add. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 17:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

- Ah yes! Almost forgot: about my modification of the Evolution reference, it is within their sincere belief that $_experiment verifies the theory of evolution to varying degrees, so to claim that they are being deceitful is rather baseless unless you can cite a source of all evolutionary scientists willfully deceiving the entire world by professing something that is not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 18:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

-- I would also prefer you'd /say something/ instead of randomly reverting peoples edits, founder of Conservapedia or not. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bible ==

I added some insightful references from the Good Book. Is that a good decision? I'm new here.
--American78

== Jacob example ==

Is there any reason for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=next&oldid=512709 this revert] in particular? I don't see why the example of Jacob isn't a reasonable example of how deceit can land you in trouble. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]]

==Huckabee and Wayne DuMond==

Doesn't this classify as deceit? He vehemently denied any involvement in DuMond's release, but tantamount evidence shows otherwise, and he still denies it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Examples ==

When possible, we want prominent examples of deceit where it is evident the individual knew what they were doing without question. So Huckabee would not be a good example, as it is unclear that he directly talked with the women or had reviewed their paperwork. Subordinates often handle much of that work and how things are presented to the governor. If a person is directly responsible, then that is different. Bill Clinton wagging his finger on TV while he talked about Monica Lewinsky is direct involvement where he obviously knew what he was doing. (In this case it was decided at an earlier time not to include that example in this article, so I am using it for display purposes only.) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:You might be right, but there's really no evidence to support that he didn't know anything about it. At a minimum, he was dishonest about disclosing the records:
::"Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
::...But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive ."
:And this seems to suggest two-way correspondence from Huckabee himself:
::"The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee."
:I don't think we can' write this off so easily, especially when there are really weak cases, like the Michael Moore example. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:33, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Huckabee knew what he was doing - he took the parole board into a private meeting and pushed for DuMond's release. Victims sent letters, and he ignored them. He still denies having no involvement in DuMond's release, however, which is deceit. If you'd like, I'll search for multiple sources. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't followed this article closely and I can see it has changed over time. Our general philosophy was to note strong examples with an understanding that too many examples would water down the article itself. A choice was also made to be careful with politicians, as a case can be made for almost anyone that they were deceitful, except in the case of undeniable evidence of purposeful deceit. So questions I would have with Huckabee would be in the why arena. Are we saying the man purposely wanted to get a rapist out of prison with the knowledge he was likely to rape again? And that somehow the parole board agreed? I would imagine that based on the information presented that it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time or else he - and the board - would not have made that decision. You'll also see that I removed reference to deceit for another politician, as I believe the reference failed to merit inclusion based upon the same standard. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree with you in principal. I think I've said before (and if not said, I've at least thought it very hard) that there shouldn't be a list at all for a multitude of reasons. But since we have one, I think this might be a good one to go on it. I reread the article and discovered that apparently the reason that Huckabee wanted the prisoner released was that it was a major issue with his conservative voterbase, who thought that the charges were trumped up and that the victim was related to Bill Clinton (a distant cousin). According to [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-aide-contradicts-h_n_75519.html this] article that I just found, Huckabee himself did actually ask the parole board to release the prisoner. Or his aide could be lying, but there's no evididence for that either.

:So do whatever you think is right, Learn together. It sounds like I'm committed on keeping this example in, but really I just want to make sure it gets a fair read, lest it look like we are censoring conservative examples of deceit (and I completely doubt that's what you are trying to do here!!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Censorship

2008-12-24T17:43:50Z

NTemple:

'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*Censorship of dissenting views, particularly pro-evolutionary and pro-choice views, on Conservapedia.
*the destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the most well-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the first amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabia prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]
*[[Liberal censorship]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Censorship

2008-12-24T17:43:34Z

NTemple:

'''Censorship''' is the suppression of statements or information for ideological reasons. Current examples include:

*the banning of [[prayer]] in the classroom<ref>See, e.g., [[classroom prayer]].</ref>
*the rejection of [[pro-life]] advertisements<ref>See, e.g., "[[Canadian]] City Backpedals on Decision to Censor [[Pro-life]] Bus-shelter Ads." [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060506.html]</ref>
*Censorship of dissenting views, particularly pro-evolutionary and pro-choice views, on Conservapedia
*the destruction of [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses.<ref>http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19383118&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8</ref>
*the banning of mention of [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>See, e.g., [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]].</ref>
*protesting and disrupting invited conservative speakers on campuses.<ref>[http://www.nysun.com/new-york/at-columbia-students-attack-minuteman-founder/41020/ At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder] Ny Sun, October 5, 2006</ref>
*Censorship can also take the form of ostracizing students for expressing [[pro-life]] or other [[conservative]] views.<ref> See, e.g., [[liberals and friendship]].</ref>
*Censorship is sometimes based on a misuse of [[copyright]], as in the unsuccessful attempt to censor the movie [[Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed]] about [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7432860.stm</ref>
*Censorship of [[conservative]] [[talk radio]] via the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

Political censorship involves a government preventing information from reaching its citizens. Perhaps the most well-known contemporary example of this is China's censorship of the [[Google]] search engine, known as the "Golden Shield Project", which prevents Google from displaying search results of some human rights websites, websites promoting Tibetan independence, references to the 1989 Tianamen Square protests, and others. A famous example in fiction is George Orwell's novel ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'', in which the main character works as a civil servant in the department responsible for altering or destroying historical information which the government wishes to keep secret. The rationale behind political censorship is that the political party in power can protect itself from revolution if the public is kept uninformed.

The term '''censorship''' derives from ''censor'', the title of the Roman official who conducted the census and supervised public morality.

==The First Amendment and censorship in the U. S.==
In the United States, the [[First Amendment]] states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Broadly speaking, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the government from exercising censorship. However, the government sometimes censors political and religious speech anyway.

More specifically, the government should not exercise "prior restraint." That is, a citizen should not need advance permission from the government in order to publish something, unless it threatens [[national security]]. This does not mean that publication may not have consequences: a citizen can be sued for publishing [[libel]], or incarcerated for disclosing military secrets, but the consequences typically occur ''after'' publication, not before.

Censorship is sometimes applied to prohibit obscenity that goes against common standards of public [[morality]]; under US law the first amendment does not protect material considered legally obscene. The definition of obscenity has and continues to vary, with the current Supreme Court definition being the [[Miller test]]. In practical terms, this allows harmful material such as pornography to be criminalized without violating the first amendment.

Censorship may also be directed at religious ideas, as in the Saudi Arabia prohibition on preaching Christianity, liberal restrictions on public expressions of religion or the Roman Catholic Church's now-recinded ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum''.

Certain language and images that may have been censored in the past are typically common fare in the American media today. On the other hand, while nudity, for example, may be acceptable on mainstream French television, that is much less likely to be accepted in American television and even less acceptable in conservative Muslim countries.

== Quotes ==
*''"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.'' '''[[George Bernard Shaw]]<ref>"The Author's Apology, preface to "Mrs. Warren's Profession".</ref>

==See also==
*[[Fairness Doctrine]]
*[[Liberal censorship]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Liberals and friendship

2008-12-24T16:51:58Z

NTemple: This page has no business in an encyclopedia. If we want to be taken seriously, let's move this to the "Essays" section.

{{delete}}

'''Liberals''' often make approval of [[liberal]] values a condition of [[friendship]]. Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[liberal values]]. For example, Nobel laureate [[Ronald Coase]] described how he was victimized by disparaging whispers at cocktail parties about his [[conservative]] economic positions.<ref>Thomas W. Hazlett. [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30115.html "Looking For Results"]. ''Reason'' January 1997. </ref>

Princeton University professor Robert George observed,
:"If [a conservative] kid applies to one of the top graduate schools, he's likely to be not admitted. Say he gets past that first screen. He's going to face pressure to conform or he'll be the victim of discrimination. It's a lot harder to hide then than it was as an undergrad."<ref name="badger">Darryn Beckstrom, [http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/01/confessions_of_a_con.php "Confessions of a conservative grad student"]. The Badger Herald, September 1, 2005.</ref>

A '''liberal friendship''' can occur wherever [[liberals]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.There is even a website entitled "Ostracize a Republican," which justifies the practice by comparing Republicans to Nazis using a parody of the famous [[Martin Niemoeller|"I did not speak up" speech]]. <ref>http://ostracizearepublican.org/</ref>

David Brooks of the [[New York Times]] published advice from prominent professors which said that conservative graduate students in humanities and social sciences are better off if they keep their conservative views in the closet. Brooks wrote:<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E5DB133DF934A1575AC0A9659C8B63</ref>

:"The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet. Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: 'You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet.'"

Darryn Beckstrom, a graduate student at [[liberal]] [[University of Wisconsin]], confirmed it:<ref name="badger" />

:Mr. George is right. It is indeed harder to hide your political ideology. Not because of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 button on the ol’ backpack, but because your fellow graduate students — and future colleagues — expect you to be liberal. It’s as if these students have gone through their entire educational careers using the liberals’ edition of Webster’s Dictionary, and the definition for “intelligent” specifically forbids any association with conservativism.

:I still remember the day several students from my cohort discovered the scandalous detail that I was a supporter of President Bush and the petrified looks on their Macintosh-loving faces as I gave a riveting defense of the War on Terror. (Disclosure: This column was written with a notebook purchased from the Texas-based, Dubya-supporting, capitalistic leviathan Dell Corporation.)

:Though my monologue most likely fell on deaf ears, a familiar response came afterward: “Well, at least you aren’t one of those social conservatives, are you?” Indeed I am.

Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy described this phenomenon, without endorsing it, in reference to [[conservative]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]: "among professional blacks, especially lawyers, he is widely ostracized."<ref>http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010657</ref>

Renowned [[conservative]] physicist [[Edward Teller]] described how [[liberals]] terminated their friendship with him and his wife for political reasons. "By old friends we were practically ostracized," he said, adding that his wife "was very badly hurt" and even fell ill from it.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/obituaries/10TELL.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=527a0430768a87c7&ex=1378612800&partner=USERLAND</ref>

[[Michael Medved]] observed that in [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]], "There are no movies in the recent past that send overt unapologetic conservative messages. Why? Because anybody who attempted to do that would be criticized [and] ostracized socially, if not commercially, in the Hollywood community."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148108,00.html</ref>

Attorney David Bernstein described his experience at the very [[liberal]] [[Yale]] law school:<ref>http://volokh.com/posts/1130872867.shtml</ref>

:[A] classmate of mine told me ... that a significant number of my Yale classmates shunned me [first semester] because of "what you said in [first semester] Contracts class." I responded that I don't remember saying anything all that controversial--after all, we didn't discuss abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, or any other especially hot button issues in Contracts class, and my views on such issues were not especially out of the mainstream at Yale, anyway. My classmate responded, and I swear he seemed at least 80% serious, "yes, but you kept saying that contracts should be enforced."

[[Image:David Clarke.jpg|right|thumb|Sheriff David Clarke]]
African American sheriff David Clarke explains how [[liberals]] ostracize black [[conservatives]]:<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_heralds.html</ref>

:Clarke argues — plausibly — that President Bush should give him and other black conservatives a platform to boost their credibility and exposure. Black ministers call him furtively to express support but explain that they can't do so publicly. "People are watching what will happen to me; they want assurance that they can survive. It's going to require individuals to develop courage to buck the plantation politics, because it's not fun to be ostracized by one's own people."

One college student in relatively neutral [[Pennsylvania]] observed:<ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/teenscene/s_555216.html</ref>

:I think a lot of young Republicans are afraid of being ostracized by fellow classmates and professors if they are open about their political opinions, since most people regard the majority of college students and professors as being liberal.

In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neil]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. These liberals were friends with Regan although they knew he was a conservative.

Besides the loss of a friendship if you display disapproval of the liberal [[belief]] system, if a liberal knows you are a well known [[conservative]], they may wish you bad luck. However, if you change by discounting your past conservative relationships / principles, they would embrace and reward you with '''liberal friendship'''. e.g. Press Secretary Scott McClellan of the Bush administration was hated by liberals just for working in the administration. After leaving his position and writing a book publicly criticizing President Bush, the typical left leaning media sources actually defended him.<ref>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/mcclellan_publisher/ , Salon.com In Defese Of Scott McClellan, May 29, 2008</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Liberal bias in grading]]
* [[Liberal tricks]]
* [[Liberal deceit]]
* [[Professor values]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Brainwashing

2008-12-21T17:19:39Z

NTemple:

=="See Also"?==
Is this a joke? Please tell me this is a satire. Please tell me that link isn't supposed to be there. PLEASE.--[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 12:19, 21 December 2008 (EST)

----

*The CCF segregated the POWs according to rank, race and nationality and created interrogation and indoctrination programs. With their indoctrination program, the CCF tested each prisoner's faith in the democratic process, but the Chinese sought publicity more than converts to communism. Daily propaganda lectures and broadcasts that attacked capitalist society were conducted, and the CCF persuaded some POWs to sign peace petitions and make pro-communist statements. The term "brainwashing" obtained notoriety at this time and caused concern to American authorities. Brainwashing was defined as an intense and prolonged psychological process designed to erase an individual's past beliefs and to substitute new ones. Even though some American POWs collaborated with their captors, most of them did so for personal convenience. No confirmed cases of brainwashing came out of the Korean War. [http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/pow.shtml]

I guess I was wrong here. Probably mixing up the plot of [[The Manchurian Candidate]] with the real history of the time.

The quote I cited above makes no mention of hypnosis, but of "[[indoctrination]]". This would seem to require a conscious subject. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Al-Fatiha

2008-12-21T02:55:07Z

NTemple:

What is wrong with this article? The reasons given seem inapplicable, and unreasonable.--[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 17:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

*Have you done a Google search on the title? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:55, 19 December 2008 (EST)

**So it's also the name of a gay and lesbian association? Why is that a big deal? It's the most important prayer in the Islamic faith. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 21:55, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Al-Fatiha

2008-12-21T02:54:52Z

NTemple:

Talk:Al-Fatiha

2008-12-19T22:21:50Z

NTemple: New page: What is wrong with this article? The reasons given seem inapplicable, and unreasonable.--~~~~

What is wrong with this article? The reasons given seem inapplicable, and unreasonable.--[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 17:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Plessy v. Ferguson

2008-12-19T22:11:39Z

NTemple: New page: Yet another bloated article on a Supreme Court decision. Can we PLEASE remove the full text and link to it elsewhere? --~~~~

Yet another bloated article on a Supreme Court decision. Can we PLEASE remove the full text and link to it elsewhere? --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 17:11, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:DDT ban

2008-12-18T01:32:32Z

NTemple: New page: Shouldn't we merge this with the DDT article itself? Much of the text is identical. --~~~~

Shouldn't we merge this with the DDT article itself? Much of the text is identical. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 20:32, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Carcinogen

2008-12-17T21:53:45Z

NTemple:

Estrogen is a ''carcinogen''? I understand the idea you're trying to support (the same one seen in the article on the Pill) but that seems a little excessive. Citation or clarification is needed. In the meanwhile, because estrogen, by itself, does not cause cancer any more than testosterone or any other hormone, I will remove it from the list. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 22.45 16 December 2008 (EST)

Also, only one particular nickel-containing compound has a correlation (which does ''not'' prove causation) with cancer. I'll remove that one too. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]]

:Re: [[estrogen]], better to say there is a [[scientific dispute]]. This is not Wikipedia: we acknowledge the existence of [[scientific controversy]] and [[scientific debate]]s.
* The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences labeled steroidal estrogen a "known carcinogen". [http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1155/context/archive]

:If you restore the link, maybe say 'disputed' after it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:52, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Seems iffy to me, but you're the bossman. I think it falls into the "nothing is poisonous and everything is poisonous" category: all that matters is the dose. And while I have you, I think alcohol should be cut too. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]]

:I'll drink to that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Boo. Hiss. Terrible pun. I'll remove the alcoholic beverages, then. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23:12, 16 Dec. 2008 (EST)

Alright- I understand we're trying to advance an agenda here, so I'll leave the estrogen be. But can someone explain alcoholic beverages to me? I think that this, along with a few others in the list are, at best, confusing and, at worst, suspect. I think it would be best to limit the examples to commonly-accepted ones- such as tobacco and gasoline fumes. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 16.53, 17 Dec. 2008 (EST)

Talk:Handgun permits

2008-12-17T04:59:23Z

NTemple: New page: == Needs Rewritten == Again, ideological argument, not encyclopedic article. Needs a rewrite desperately... NTemple 23.59 16 Dec. 2008 (EST)

== Needs Rewritten ==
Again, ideological argument, not encyclopedic article. Needs a rewrite desperately... [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23.59 16 Dec. 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gun locks

2008-12-17T04:57:09Z

NTemple: New page: == Ideological Argument, not Encyclopedic == This article fails to even define the term "gun lock". It presents an argument against an object it doesn't even define. Please rewrite, if and...

== Ideological Argument, not Encyclopedic ==
This article fails to even define the term "gun lock". It presents an argument against an object it doesn't even define. Please rewrite, if and when possible. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23.56 16, Dec. 2008 (EST)

User talk:NTemple

2008-12-17T04:50:28Z

NTemple:

== Careful ==

Welcome to Conservapedia, NTemple. A user mistakenly thought that you were a vandal (which is partially my fault). When making changes, i recommend waiting twenty minutes after posting to a talk page, or referencing the talk page in your edit comment. It is much to easy for there to be mixups. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:44, 16 December 2008 (EST)

*Thanks! I'm a little concerned about the stranglehold that the editorial staff seems to hold over articles, but I suppose I'll have to get used to it if I plan to stick around. But, again, thanks for the welcome and for the heads up. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23.50 16 Dec 2008

Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

2008-12-17T04:39:57Z

NTemple:

Thanks for the unlock. I added some bits about Galapagos and removed the misquote about Atheists in foxholes. I think the bit about white supremacists, as much as he may have said it, is not necessary to the article. It doesn't add anything- we know he's an Atheist from his presidency of the Humanist society and his jokes about heaven at a funeral. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 12:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Given that the liberal vandalism happened over a year ago, can we unlock this? I'd like to add a bit about Cat's Cradle [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:04, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Old, disrespectful discussion==

Andrew, this is embarrassing. Just about every article that you have started has stupid errors in it, typos, grammatical problems, etc. This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display, but the weakness of the writers. The sad thing is that its founder is one of the weakest writers here.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 14:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

that was mean to say. you could of said it nicer. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::so it goes --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was surprised to hear the Kurt Vonnegut said “there are no atheists in foxholes”. So I looked at the link given to support that quote, only to discover that the full quote was, “The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front." ” The context makes it clear that the character speaking (which we probably should not equate to Kurt Vonnegut as it comes from Hocus-Pocus which is not his most biographical novel) does not believe the truth of the claim “there are no atheists in foxholes”—the chaplain doesn’t know the truth of the front, which is where the foxholes are.
If the site wants a quote to show that Vonnegut was respectful of religion, you could replace it with the quote from his last collection of essays, "if I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: 'The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'" (Quoted at NPR’s remembrance of Vonnegut here [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9554280] )--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

More recently Vonnegut wrote something much more pointed, which I tried to include as a counterpoit in this article '''However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " I <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref>'''
I was immediately deleted and the article locked. I won't speculate on the reasons for this, but I do think this distortation is a diservice to Vonnegut's legacy and obviously contra-factual. Why include one but not the other. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== "See, even ATHEIST Kurt Vonnegut said there were no atheists in foxholes! Take a hint, non-believers!" ==

Reginod, NothingVentured - You are correct. Kurt Vonnegut has been ''deliberately'' misquoted in this article to portray him as "respectful to those with faith," when in fact he's a noted critic and satirist of religion in general and Christianity in particular. This entry's obvious deceptions clearly show exactly what Conservapedia is: an intentional distortion of the truth, or more simply put, lies.

What's particularly laughable is the need of the editors to somehow dilute the fact of his avowed atheism by inserting a made-up claim of Vonnegut being "respectful of those with faith." Its almost an admission that being "with faith" is a form of disability or mental hindrance which the faithless must patronize. One has to think that somehow Kurt Vonnegut's mainstream celebrity status combined with his vocal atheism are a threat to Conservapedia and its cadre of weak-willed admins. Their solution? Lie about what Vonnegut said, and offer it as a tacit lesson to other atheists: You should follow this example and be "respectful" to people "with faith," by patronizing their irrational, unfounded, and ridiculous beliefs, because [Christian] religious beliefs are sacred, and should be accorded more respect than any other beliefs, regardless of merit.

Its no surprise that this article can't be edited. The truth about Kurt Vonnegut is too damaging to Conservapedia's purpose of Christian evangelism through disinformation. --[[User:TheDecider|TheDecider]] 19:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't edit war. Explain how it was "offensive", "disrespectful" and/or taken out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Ed, the complete Atheist in Foxholes quote is this: "The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front."" The quote comes from Hocus Pocus. I'm ok with leaving in the white suppremecist quote if you deem it worthy, but I feel that the foxholes quote needs work, as it's quoting him quoting someone he disagrees with. Also, I noticed you deleted my bit about ''Galapagos.'' Why? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 12:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Casualty Figures are Incorrect ==

It has since surfaced that the casualty figures for the Dresden firebombing were greatly inflated by David Irving, who has recently been revealed as a Nazi-sympathizer, whose books on the subject were considered the definitive source on the Dresden raids for the 70's and 80's. I believe the revised death toll is between 20,000-40,000, and I'm positive that it's below 80,000 dead. As such, it should be changed as it is currently misinformation.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, I am growing weary of seeing post after [[Deceit|deceitful]] post of yours! I invite you to make quality non-talk edits to this, the fastest growing educational website on the Net! This is not Wikipedia! Do not make unsubstantiated gossipy comments here! Thank you. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, he's completely right. The numbers used here are way, way off any accepted numbers. What happened in Dresden was tragic, but we can't overinflate it. I'll let this sit until tomorrow and, if no one has included a legitimate citation to back up that number, I will replace it with a properly cited number. --[[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23.39, 16 Dec. 2008(EST)

Carcinogen

2008-12-17T04:12:47Z

NTemple:

A '''carcinogen''' is any substance capable of causing [[cancer]].<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/carcinogen?view=uk Compact Oxford English Dictionary].</ref> Carcinogens do not always cause cancer. Risk factors include the length and intensity of exposure and the genetic makeup of the individual.<ref name="ACS">American Cancer Society: [http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp Known and Probable Carcinogens]</ref>

==Identification==
Laboratory studies are the primary source for identifying carcinogens. In these studies, it is assumed that if a large dose (usually higher than common human exposure)of a substance causes cancer in cell cultures or animals it will also cause cancer in humans.<ref name="ACS"/>

[[Epidemiology|Epidemiologic studies]] are another importance source of information about carcinogens. These focus on the interactions of human populations with the substances found in their environments. It is difficult to identify carcinogens through these studies because of their uncontrolled nature, but they aid scientists in making educated assessments of the cancer-causing ability of suspected carcinogens.<ref name="ACS"/>

==Classification==
Carcinogens are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program.

===International Agency for Research on Cancer===
The [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]] (IARC), of the [[World Health Organization]], produces the most widely used system<ref name="ACS"/> for classifying carcinogens in its ''Monographs'' (published since 1971<ref>http://monographs.iarc.fr/index.php</ref>). Substances are classified by IARC as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans: ''Established'', ''Probable'', ''Possible'', ''Unclassifiable'', and ''Not probable''.<ref>IARC: [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php Classifications]</ref> The group qualifiers ''probable'' and ''possible'' have no [[quantitative]] significance but are used as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity.<ref>Group [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php definitions].</ref>

===National Toxicology Program===
The [[National Toxicology Program]] (NTP), of the [[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], classifies carcinogens in two categories: ''Known'', and ''Reasonably anticipated''.<ref name="NTP">National Toxicology Progam: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=03CA6383-9766-1F64-6637241FE0114FE9 Questions & Answers about the RoC].</ref> Since 1978, it has produced a list of carcinogenic material along with federal regulations limiting exposure.<ref name="NTP"/>

==Examples==
The following are common-place examples of carcinogens:
*[[Asbestos]]
*[[Asphalt]] fumes
*[[Chloroform]]
*Diesel exhaust
*[[Estrogen]]<ref>[http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1155/context/archive Feds label estrogen carcinogen]</ref>
*Gasoline
*Nickel<ref>Kasprzak KS, Sunderman FW Jr, Salnikow K. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14643413&dopt=Abstract Nickel carcinogenesis]</ref>
*[[Solar radiation]]
*[[Soot]]
*[[Tobacco]] products
*[[X-Radiation]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (part of the CDC): [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npotocca.html Carcinogen List]
*Full text to the ''[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php Preamble to the IARC Monographs]''
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html 11th Report on Carcinogens]
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/known.pdf List of Known Carcinogens]

[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Carcinogen

2008-12-17T04:12:25Z

NTemple:

Text of Brown v. Board of Education

2008-12-17T04:09:33Z

NTemple:

{{discrimlaw}}

'''Brown v. Board''' was a landmark 1954 [[Supreme Court]] decision that ordered racial desegregation of public schools. It was based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]], <ref name="umkc">In 1954, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of [[Topeka]]. "Racially segregated schools," the Court concluded, are "inherently unequal." The Court found support for its decision in studies that indicated that minority students learn better in racially mixed classrooms. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm] </ref>
and on social science research that claimed to show that black children have trouble learning unless white children are in the classroom. The decision led to later decisions requiring forced racial busing of school children.

Today, Monroe Elementary School in [[Topeka]], Kansas, which was attended by the children of three of the plaintiffs in this case, is a museum operated by the US Department of the Interior, known as the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site.

== Law & Social Change ==
It is debatable how much actual desegregation was a result of this ruling and related federal court decisions. This raises interesting questions as to the role of the Supreme Court in bringing about actual social change. No one today will dispute the need to end the earlier system of segregated schools, and the importance of the decision, but many will query whether it changed that much, or if its use was rather in sending a definitive signal that the days of segregation and institutionalized racism were at a close.

==External Links==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483] (Full text of decision with hyperlinks)

==Notes==

<references/>

== Other Links ==
Until the article is expanded, please see
*[[Earl Warren]]
*[[Fourteenth Amendment]]
*[[Plessy v. Ferguson]], for the pre-''Brown'' consensus.

Talk:Text of Brown v. Board of Education

2008-12-17T04:05:48Z

NTemple: New page: We should link to the full text of the decision, but putting it ''in'' the page seems over-the-top. I'll add an external link. And I think it is important to mention the serious judicial a...

We should link to the full text of the decision, but putting it ''in'' the page seems over-the-top. I'll add an external link. And I think it is important to mention the serious judicial activism that took place in making this ruling. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 23.05 16 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Carcinogen

2008-12-17T03:56:23Z

NTemple:

Carcinogen

2008-12-17T03:50:39Z

NTemple:

A '''carcinogen''' is any substance capable of causing [[cancer]].<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/carcinogen?view=uk Compact Oxford English Dictionary].</ref> Carcinogens do not always cause cancer. Risk factors include the length and intensity of exposure and the genetic makeup of the individual.<ref name="ACS">American Cancer Society: [http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp Known and Probable Carcinogens]</ref>

==Identification==
Laboratory studies are the primary source for identifying carcinogens. In these studies, it is assumed that if a large dose (usually higher than common human exposure)of a substance causes cancer in cell cultures or animals it will also cause cancer in humans.<ref name="ACS"/>

[[Epidemiology|Epidemiologic studies]] are another importance source of information about carcinogens. These focus on the interactions of human populations with the substances found in their environments. It is difficult to identify carcinogens through these studies because of their uncontrolled nature, but they aid scientists in making educated assessments of the cancer-causing ability of suspected carcinogens.<ref name="ACS"/>

==Classification==
Carcinogens are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program.

===International Agency for Research on Cancer===
The [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]] (IARC), of the [[World Health Organization]], produces the most widely used system<ref name="ACS"/> for classifying carcinogens in its ''Monographs'' (published since 1971<ref>http://monographs.iarc.fr/index.php</ref>). Substances are classified by IARC as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans: ''Established'', ''Probable'', ''Possible'', ''Unclassifiable'', and ''Not probable''.<ref>IARC: [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php Classifications]</ref> The group qualifiers ''probable'' and ''possible'' have no [[quantitative]] significance but are used as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity.<ref>Group [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php definitions].</ref>

===National Toxicology Program===
The [[National Toxicology Program]] (NTP), of the [[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], classifies carcinogens in two categories: ''Known'', and ''Reasonably anticipated''.<ref name="NTP">National Toxicology Progam: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=03CA6383-9766-1F64-6637241FE0114FE9 Questions & Answers about the RoC].</ref> Since 1978, it has produced a list of carcinogenic material along with federal regulations limiting exposure.<ref name="NTP"/>

==Examples==
The following are common-place examples of carcinogens:
*[[Alcohol|Alcoholic]] beverages
*[[Asbestos]]
*[[Asphalt]] fumes
*[[Chloroform]]
*Diesel exhaust
*[[Estrogen]]
*Gasoline
*[[Solar radiation]]
*[[Soot]]
*[[Tobacco]] products
*[[X-Radiation]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (part of the CDC): [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npotocca.html Carcinogen List]
*Full text to the ''[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php Preamble to the IARC Monographs]''
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html 11th Report on Carcinogens]
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/known.pdf List of Known Carcinogens]

[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Carcinogen

2008-12-17T03:50:04Z

NTemple:

Carcinogen

2008-12-17T03:46:21Z

NTemple:

A '''carcinogen''' is any substance capable of causing [[cancer]].<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/carcinogen?view=uk Compact Oxford English Dictionary].</ref> Carcinogens do not always cause cancer. Risk factors include the length and intensity of exposure and the genetic makeup of the individual.<ref name="ACS">American Cancer Society: [http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp Known and Probable Carcinogens]</ref>

==Identification==
Laboratory studies are the primary source for identifying carcinogens. In these studies, it is assumed that if a large dose (usually higher than common human exposure)of a substance causes cancer in cell cultures or animals it will also cause cancer in humans.<ref name="ACS"/>

[[Epidemiology|Epidemiologic studies]] are another importance source of information about carcinogens. These focus on the interactions of human populations with the substances found in their environments. It is difficult to identify carcinogens through these studies because of their uncontrolled nature, but they aid scientists in making educated assessments of the cancer-causing ability of suspected carcinogens.<ref name="ACS"/>

==Classification==
Carcinogens are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program.

===International Agency for Research on Cancer===
The [[International Agency for Research on Cancer]] (IARC), of the [[World Health Organization]], produces the most widely used system<ref name="ACS"/> for classifying carcinogens in its ''Monographs'' (published since 1971<ref>http://monographs.iarc.fr/index.php</ref>). Substances are classified by IARC as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans: ''Established'', ''Probable'', ''Possible'', ''Unclassifiable'', and ''Not probable''.<ref>IARC: [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php Classifications]</ref> The group qualifiers ''probable'' and ''possible'' have no [[quantitative]] significance but are used as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity.<ref>Group [http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php definitions].</ref>

===National Toxicology Program===
The [[National Toxicology Program]] (NTP), of the [[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], classifies carcinogens in two categories: ''Known'', and ''Reasonably anticipated''.<ref name="NTP">National Toxicology Progam: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=03CA6383-9766-1F64-6637241FE0114FE9 Questions & Answers about the RoC].</ref> Since 1978, it has produced a list of carcinogenic material along with federal regulations limiting exposure.<ref name="NTP"/>

==Examples==
The following are common-place examples of carcinogens:
*[[Alcohol|Alcoholic]] beverages
*[[Asbestos]]
*[[Asphalt]] fumes
*[[Chloroform]]
*Diesel exhaust
*Gasoline
*Nickel
*[[Solar radiation]]
*[[Soot]]
*[[Tobacco]] products
*[[X-Radiation]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (part of the CDC): [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npotocca.html Carcinogen List]
*Full text to the ''[http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/index.php Preamble to the IARC Monographs]''
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html 11th Report on Carcinogens]
*NTP: [http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/known.pdf List of Known Carcinogens]

[[Category:Health]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Carcinogen

2008-12-17T03:45:41Z

NTemple: New page: Estrogen is a ''carcinogen''? I understand the idea you're trying to support (the same one seen in the article on the Pill) but that seems a little excessive. Citation or clarification is ...

Talk:Abraham Lincoln

2008-12-17T02:54:42Z

NTemple:

"Lincoln was perhaps the only President who appeared to move from being an unbeliever to believer while in office."

Unbeliever/believer of what? This has no context for non-Christians. I get it, but to most other people it probably sounds bizarre.

The word "unbeliever" is also sort of awkward. Someone can be unbelievable, but usually someone isn't an unbeliever. So if you're an "unbeliever" do you "unbelieve" things? I'm not so sure someone can "unbelieve" something; I don't think it works well as a verb or a noun.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:30, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Good point. I'll clarify now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)

What about non-believer?--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:47, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ah, it looks good now. Thanks! -[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Where is the evidence that Lincoln was a "non-believer?" In almost everything I have read on Lincoln, he certaintly believed in God but held views that were outside the norms. Just because he didn't practice an organized form of Christianity does not mean he was a "non-believer."--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:28, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Lincoln made statements early in his life that indicated a lack of certainty or belief about Christianity, but his views changed over time, and he gave his life to Jesus at Gettysburg, when he was president. Taking statements that he made in his youth and automatically saying that he wasn't a Christian or was a Deist is something that shouldn't be done, and is academically dishonest at worst. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the story about Grace and Lincoln's beard is apocryphal. I haven't done any real looking into it, but it may be worth removing until we can cite it. Actually, this article is in need of some serious citations... I'll try and work on that. Any help is appreciated. [[User:NTemple|NTemple]]

==Picture==
Added a pic of Lincoln taken in 1863, but it won't load into the page properly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Selective quotation==

I replaced the out-of-context quotation which liberals like to tar and feather Lincoln with. They want to make him seem soft on slavery, when he in fact opposed it.

There was, however, one thing he cared more about than the slavery issue: that was '''keeping the union together'''. If he had to pick one over the other, this was the one he'd pick.

As history shows, he managed to get both, even if it killed him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Lincoln opposed slavery." ==

This page currently contains the quote "Lincoln opposed slavery." This is at best an over-simplification of his later philosophy.

The plain, objective, documented fact, for which citations and quotations are widely available, is that this is a stance that he took considerable time to arrive at. You cannot uphold the credibility of this site by whitewashing this. Those of opposing points of view know this and will use it to discredit this site, and they will be right. I have re-added the quote to hopefully stimulate people into making a truly balanced page, instead of a central-party style hagiography. If you object to the presence of the quote, balance it rather than censor it.

:No, you are right: Lincoln hated slavery but was wary about abolition. He only forced the issue in the last dozen years of his life. But consider this quote:
:*I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. ... It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable.
:Where Liberals and Conservatives disagree is on the meaning of this contradiction. Lincoln debunkers say that his reluctance to support abolition '''implies''' an equal lack of concern about slavery. Their view contradicts Lincoln's view! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't worry about people laughing - their merriment is no indication of the correctness of their views. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The best source material covering Lincoln's own views on slavery and relations between blacks and whites are his own words, period. I've added a link to the "Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln" which is everything that Lincoln ever wrote down. Other primary sources are those works written down by people who actually knew him, and for that Frederick Douglas is at the top of the list.

Carl Sandburg's book should be at the top for secondary source material, as he had interviewed people who knew Lincoln when he wrote his 4-volume biography. After I do the Civil War, I'll commence work on this article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

So, who exactly claims that Lincoln owned slaves?--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I've uploaded a picture of the Lincoln Memorial that I took for this article - DcLincMor.JPG - --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== External link ==

This is a good one:

http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-lincoln

== Main Page ==

On the main page it says this article needs to be improved... but it's locked. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 15:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Improved==
The article is improved, but at this time it is not finished. I need to work out the references and polish it up; I need to add in his family life; his Gettysburg Address, letter to Mrs Bixby, et al, needs to be added, as well as a few pics. It also needs to be linked to the various other articles releated to Lincoln here on this website. But it's better than it was earlier. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Added personal life...more to come. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pic missed ==

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:29, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lincoln3.jpg|thumb|right|Reward]]

==Among the top articles to be improved==
I think that if you have an article list that says these articles need to be improved then why is this thing blocked? If it is blocked then it shouldn't be on that list (on the Main Page.) Could someone either take it off the list or make the improvements to take it off? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

: We only block articles in response to vandalism or edit war. If blocked, then please propose additions on the talk page. In the case of [[Abraham Lincoln]], I'll unblock it for you now so you can edit directly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I take that back. I see a Sysop protected this entry a mere two hours ago, perhaps in response with vandalism. Please check with [[User talk:Karajou]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I re-opened it for registered users. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Additional edits coming==
Here's what I think it needs:
*Expansion regarding religious beliefs. Currently it says a few things he said about it, but nothing really on what he felt.
*Create a new subheading on the Lincoln-Douglas debates; this really needs some detail.
*Expand and add to his views on slavery. He did think at one time that blacks were inferior, but it changed over time. And mention of Frederick Douglas needs to be here, as Lincoln sought his council on the subject.
*Expand the Civil War.
*Expand his personal life. He was heartbroken over Willie's death, and this affected his belief in God on the plus side.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Terms of Office ==

I think that there should be a citation for Abraham Lincoln's terms of office. I would do it myself, but the editing appears to have been disabled. [[User:Malveramenso|Mal]] 21:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Roe v. Wade

2008-12-17T02:34:01Z

NTemple:

==''Roe'' and Judicial Activism==
This article's locked for editing, but I think it might be worth mentioning the dangerous influence of judicial activism present in this ruling and the dangerous precedent it sets somewhere in the introduction. Can we unlock it or can a sysop add this? [[User:NTemple|NTemple]] 21.22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

----

I've deleted the comment about Roe being a lesbian. It seems the kind of thing a reference is needed for. One for her real name would be nice too. [[User:Lil_cain|lil_cain]] 03.43, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

LOL! Great edit, Lil Cain. If she really was a lesbian, it's funny that she got pregnant. I would think a cite would be needed for that...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I've also edited out the section about no one caring about the judgement for a time. Even if it was not widely known(something I don't have the first notion about), I'm sure a substaintal minority of those affected did care at the time(I am of course open to being rebutted on this, but with references preferably)
also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion
[[User:Lil_cain|lil_cain]] 03.46, 10 March 2007 (GMT)

also, should the bit at the end not be a statement of fact, or not there? Surely what the judgement says is legal fact at this point, not opinion

Added the meat of Blackmun's opinion along with re-added the section on controversy. Controversy is, obviously, informative as to the social ramifications of the opinion.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Trimesters ==
There is no meaningful distinction between trimesters in Roe v Wade. Reginod, your edit is not correct. Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Roe v Wade allows abortions in all 3 trimesters, but that doesn't mean there's no meaningful distinction between them in the decision. Blackmun's decision said that, in the first trimester, there's no compelling state interest in abortion, and the doctor and his patient are free to terminate the pregnancy without interference from the state. After the first trimester, according to the decision, the state is free to regulate abortion so far as it relates to the health of the mother...the state can demand that the abortionist be licensed, that abortions must be performed in a hospital, or other things like that. After the fetus is viable, according to the decision, the state is free to even ban abortions, unless an abortion would be neccesary to "preserve the life or health of the mother." So while Roe v Wade allows abortions in all three trimesters, it also, as the pregnancy goes on, places more restrictions as to when and how an abortion can be performed.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not correct. Some states have tried to ban third trimester abortions, and the courts have thrown out the ban ever time. Third trimester abortions cannot be banned under Roe v Wade. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::First of all, my edit replaced the questionable language with the language of the Court. I did not speculate about what the Court’s language meant in practical terms, I simply said what the Court said. My edit is truer than what was there before, as what was there before put the language you are suggesting in the mouth of Blackmun where it does not belong. Second, the section I edited was about the opinion in Roe v. Wade, not the way that opinion has been interpreted—you are talking about what has been done in reading the opinion, not what the opinion actually says. Third, most of the bans that have been struck down have been struck down because they do not include an exception for the mother’s health (the Court said that the States can ban abortion in the third trimester “except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”--language I included in m edit) Fourth, a number of restrictions short of total bans have been upheld under Roe v. Wade. For example, waiting periods were upheld in Planed Parenthood v. Casey and parental consent and/or notification laws were upheld in Bellotti v. Baird. Finally, you are simply wrong, see [[Gonzales v. Carhart]] where the Court upheld a total ban on partial-birth abortions (while explicitly not overruling Roe).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is only one way to read Roe v Wade, and that is to require a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months. That is the only way anyone has ever read it. That Blackmun quote is misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:35, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I see we are on misleading again, but I won’t be bated by you this time.
:::::The quote comes from the Courts official ruling, it comes from Roe v. Wade, it is part of Roe v. Wade, it is, in fact what Roe v. Wade says. I understand that you don’t like what it says and that you like what it is read to say even less, but that doesn’t change the fact that the words I put on the page are, in fact, what Roe v. Wade says (if there is only one way to read Roe v. Wade, I hasten to add, those words CAN’T be misleading as they are the words of Roe v. Wade).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:50, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Your addition seems, to me, to be about right. I would change “All state regulations of late-term abortions have since been found unconstitutional.” to “All state-level total bans of late-term abortions, and late-term abortion procedures, have since been found unconstitutional.” (Since, as I noted above, some regulations of abortion, including late term abortion, have been upheld). And I would change “This was the first significant abortion regulation that the Supreme Court has allowed since Roe v Wade” to “This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade”. This avoids judging the significance of the other regulations that have been upheld (both sides of the debate have called them significant, so I would avoid such sweeping language to the contrary).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Seeing no objections, I will make the suggested changes.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Living Constitution

2008-12-17T02:24:12Z

NTemple:

A '''living Constitution''' (or sometimes known as an "[[Evolving constitution]]") is one that changes based on perceptions of the changing views of the public. As a practical matter, it means the [[U.S. Constitution]] should be interpreted however a majority of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] feels. This view of the Constitution is closely associated with [[judicial activism]] and is responsible for some of the most dangerous rulings in history, especially ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.

The phrase "living Constitution" was expressly used by the [[liberal]] four-Justice dissent in ''Rummel v. Estelle'', 445 U.S. 263 (1980), and it has been implicitly embraced by the left side of the Court in numerous rulings.

[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]