Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T20:10:38Z

Olly: /* "Socialist" Britain */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T19:55:44Z

Olly: /* "Socialist" Britain */

Socialism

2007-05-02T18:36:12Z

Olly: Catholics are barred whether britain is conservative or socialist.

'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America<ref>[http://www.pes.org/content/view/666/74/lang,en/]</ref>.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref> Blair is nominally Anglican but is believed to be Catholic in all but name. In Britian, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Bourneville

2007-05-01T23:53:56Z

Olly: move

It's '''Bournville'''. Not sure how to fix that.
:If you are right, a sysop will move the page to the correct spelling. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 07:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::See address here: http://www.cadbury.co.uk/EN/CTB2003/talk_to_us --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Heh, my bad - this is what happens when you write articles late at night : ) Would appreciate if a sysop could move to the correct spelling. Ta [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 07:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:No probs Trashbat. I spent many a happy afternoon on the cocoa shunter in my youth, living 10 minutes walk from the factory. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Glad to hear it Olly. I used to work in the Nelson factory (hence the article) and used to dread sound of the shunter as it meant we had stop chocolate packing and unload on the train platform. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 07:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== move ==

it's Bournville. evidence above. please correct this error.

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-01T23:39:50Z

Olly:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-01T23:10:02Z

Olly:

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

# An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of [[Wikipedia]] co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position ''after'' his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
# A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the [[rules]], which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].
# A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have violated the 90/10 requirement of the [[rules]], sometimes necessitating blocking accounts.
# Strident objections to the point in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to ''quantifying'' it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.

Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

EXAMPLES OF BIAS IN WIKIPEDIA #47. carry on ignoring this obvious example of deceit in conservapedia, please. It shows you up for the hypocrite you are. Alternatively, address it, remove it, and retain some credibility. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Socialism

2007-05-01T22:17:06Z

Olly: /* British socialism */

'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America<ref>[http://www.pes.org/content/view/666/74/lang,en/]</ref>.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the Iraq war by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm). Blair is nominally Anglican but is believed to be Catholic in all but name. Catholics are barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Imperialism

2007-05-01T22:01:02Z

Olly:

Why does this article only speak of Europe? This implies that only Europe was imperialistic. Shouldnt it mention islamic imperialism?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:One might guess that the article deals with nation-states not the predominate religion of the colonizers, which, yes, just happened to be Christianity.-_-[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 17:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Ok fine. Arabic imperialism or Middle eastern imperialism.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::One might think Bohdan had something against Islam. What about cultural imperialism? Chinese imperialism? Japanese imperialism? The imperialism of various central- and south-American ancient cultures and their imperialism? Zulu imperialism? Pre-Islamic middle-eastern and central Asian imperialism?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:18, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::for the record i dont care about the religion of anyone. I think the article seems to imply that only Europe was imperialistic, when this is clearly not true.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::Fair enough. I think the point is that Europeans - particularly Britain, France and Holland - were just the "''best''" at it. And as Rob Pommer said, Europeans colonised in the name of the state or the ruler - much like the Chinese or the Japanese.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Im pretty sure we think the same thing. I have nothing against islam, i just mentioned it because of the Ottoman Empires name recognition and familiarity.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Yeah Ok but then why not talk about Ottoman imperialism rather than Islamic? Personally I *do* have something against Islam, but the imperialism of Islam is not as important or far-reaching as that of Britain in particular, nor is it more important or far-reaching than that of many other cultures or "nations". I apologise for accusing you of anti-Islamism but you can see my point.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::alright. i admit my mistake. i misspoke. I see your point. fine leave the article as is. I cant really argue can I? after all "the sun never set on the British empire" (this is a real quote, no?)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]].
::::It is a real quote as far as I know, yes. And I guess it's true - the only problem area might have been across the Pacific between New Zealand and Canada, but since the sun shines on half the planet at once it's maybe not such an impressive claim as it might seem. Look, I'm not saying don't change the article. There is certainly a long history of imperialism around the world and Europe isn't the only guilty party. My point was just that any addition to the article shouldn't be limited to Islam. Feel free to talk about Islamic imperialism in Europe in the middle ages in the main article! but be aware that there are far more examples, and I would say that the USA's aggressive cultural imperialism is probably just as influential on the world today as any historic imperialism, and that the imperialism of, for example, certain Chinese emperors was just as far-reaching, relatively speaking, as any other.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::agreed. but i dont want to change it now, do you? i'll do some research and attempt to change it later.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::I don't want to change it, no. But this is the point of the talk pages, no? thanks for your civility Bohdan :) --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 18:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Imperialism

2007-05-01T21:50:46Z

Olly:

Talk:Imperialism

2007-05-01T21:33:08Z

Olly:

Talk:Imperialism

2007-05-01T21:23:41Z

Olly:

Talk:Imperialism

2007-05-01T21:18:59Z

Olly:

User talk:DanH

2007-05-01T19:02:52Z

Olly: /* Page deletions */

'''Archive:''' http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew
==Much Better==
Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==?==

Cut what out exactly?

:I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. [[User:Wattylfc|Wattylfc]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Big edits==
Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks!==

Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrocoite&diff=132272&oldid=132268 Thanks for the revert!] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Main Page ==
i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

--------------
I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?
-----
will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)

== Lazarus ==

The new article [[Lazarus (Parable)]] is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to ([[Lazarus]]).

Could you please do it?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you!

::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good luck ==

with that paper. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==vandals==

Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Eagle... ==

I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Question for you on the [[Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship]] page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind ... saw your reason. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Grandpa!==
Nananana Batman!

* 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hey Dan==
I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

==New Age==
What was wrong with my edits to [[New Age]] that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Budapest ==
I understood.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beaver ? ==

''"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."''

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my [[Beaver]] article is '''entirely factual'''.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [http://anvil.unl.edu/agnes/RecreatingLent.htm]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about ''Beavers'' it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Just wondering==

What could I do to gain your trust? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== NAMBLA ==

I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mammon ==

I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
==[[User:JeffersonDarcy]]==
I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Edit_Warring Edit Warring] as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=prev&oldid=131570] and I want to make a record I support it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I screwed up, as a guideline this reads [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Between_A_Sysop_and_a_non_Sysop 3 hours to one week] after the warning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal ==
No problem. Thanks for blocking him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::This guy really needs to get a life. My annoyance with him is negated by my laughs over his pathetic hobby. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
No joke. Doesn't he have anything better to do on a Sunday? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Polap Srewdna ==

he didn't edit, why the block?

== You can talk to me directly==

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Toulouse would've told me if there was a conspiracy. I feel left out of there is one that he's hiding from me.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I was too quick to judge and I apologize again for it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Page Delete Request ==

Could you please delete a page for me. I'm an idiot and was working while watching tv. I accidentally mistyped the page I wanted as "Deviance Behaviour" instead of "Deviant Behaviour". I can't figure out how to undo it, so it must mean I can't. Thanks --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bohdan==
I see you're still having trouble with Icewedge. His post on Bohdan's userpage looks like they're working together. Do you think a block of Bohdan is necessary? [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i have no involvment with him[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Simpsons are really liberal ==

Homer punched out George Bush and called president Bush Commander Kookoobananas. Not to mention that he supported Republican parodys Mr. Burns as governor and sideshow Bob. Somebody should show how liberal they really are!!!

::I think the Simpsons speaks for itself. If one can't pick up on the undertones by themselves, then they are an idiot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Leftists strike again. Are you going to accuse me of being "inbred" and living in a "trailer" for your next act?--[[User:ILikeCookies|ILikeCookies]] 17:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I wasn't making fun of you. I just think that going around telling people the Simpsons carries a liberal message is a redundant act. Most people who watch the Simpsons already know that it carries said message, and if they don't they're either burying their heads in the sand, or they really are just ignorant.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::The Simpsons are satire, especially early seasons. They make fun of everybody. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal attacks ==

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] must resign as a sysop before there is any chance of the vandal attacks ending. [[User:Davros|Davros]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I tell ya, what makes ''me'' suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up. They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! [[User:Human|Human]] 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::C'mon - you're still a newbie, Human. I mean, you haven't even been threatened with the 90/10 rule yet, have you? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hahaha, well, actually, that's probably the one rule they could ''never'' bust me on. Have you checked my alleged contribs lately? The only thing I've been accused of is relying on myth-filled, distorted YEC science texts. Oh, and I was mean to someone who used very poor grammar once, but Ed (I think) deleted it and I fixed it and sorried for it. What ''does'' make me a n00b, I guess, is not knowing what all this fuss over evolution is about? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I don't think anyone knows what it's about. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Page deletions==

Thanks for the recent deletions of unwanted British articles, they seem to be spreading a vast web of lies over us, ill try and keep my eye out for them. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 13:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

what on earth is "unwanted" and who decides? I note that [[faggot]] has been deleted; http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/faggotswithoniongrav_3899.shtml is the first google hit for "faggots" (through google.co.uk). These things are easily verifiable without even consulting wikipedia. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-05-01T13:59:54Z

Olly: /* #47 */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-04-30T09:52:57Z

Olly: #47

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

<blockquote>Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Sandwich

2007-04-27T19:56:22Z

Olly: added close-parenthesis

[[Image:sandwich.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]

A '''sandwich''' (or "butty") is the name given to a popular lunchtime food consisting of a filling (such as [[meat]] or [[cheese]]), sandwiched between two pieces of [[bread]]. Condiments such as [[mayonnaise]], [[ketchup]], and [[mustard]] are commonly used to add extra flavour to the sandwich. The beauty of the sandwich is that the possibilities for fillings are almost endless and that the bread keeps one from getting the filling on one's hands allowing them to be eaten anywhere.

==Bread==

Sandwiches can be made with almost any kind of bread. Popular sandwich breads include:

Wholemeal Bread

The [[French]] [[Baguette]]

Soda Bread

Black Bread

The Bread Roll (also known as a "cob", "barm", "bampot", "tea-cake in [[West]] [[Yorkshire]] or "oven bottom")

==Popular Sandwiches==
[[Image:ChipButty.jpg|thumb| right|250px| Delicious chip butty with Tomato Ketchup ]]

The [[knuckle sandwich]] is a traditional English factory worker's lunch.

The [[Double Pork Sandwich]] is another traditional [[English]] dish.

The "BLT" consists of bacon, lettuce and tomato.

The Beef Roll consists of sliced beef and [[horseradish]] on a bread roll

The Bombay Roll consists of sweet and sour [[chicken]], lettuce and soy sauce on a bread roll and was popular in [[ports]] where trade was done with the [[Orient]].

The Bacon sandwich is a popular breakfast item and consists of bacon and either [[brown sauce]] or tomato [[ketchup]]

The chip butty consists of a buttered bap, cob or soft roll filled with hot freshly fried [[chips]].

==Sandwich Trivia==

It is thought to be named after the 4th Earl of Sandwich, John Montagu, although he never used nor sought to perpetuate the term. The popular legend is that he ordered bread and meat one eveing during an extended card game. When the victuals arrived, he sliced the bread and meat and 'sandwiched' the bread between the meat, so that he could carry on eating and playing. In fact sandwiches had existed long before the birth of Lord Sandwich. In fact the earliest known example of a sandwich is thought to be the [[Paschal lamb]] and [[matzo]] combination eaten by [[Hillel the Elder]] at Passover. It is likely that [[Jesus]] ate sandwiches.

==Links==

http://www.sandwich.org.uk/

[[category:food and drink]]

Bourneville

2007-04-27T19:18:17Z

Olly:

{{move|Bournville}}

'''Bourneville''' is a town in the [[United Kingdom]] best known for being the home of [[Cadburys]] [[Chocolate]], one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in [[Europe]]. Cadburys popular dark chocolate is actually named Bourneville after the town.

Although the chocolate is manufactured here, the packing and boxing prior to retail is carried out in a [[Lancashire]] town called Nelson. As the volume of goods transported between the two towns is so great, a specially chartered [[train]], known locally as the "cocoa shunter" makes several trips per day.

[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Sandwich

2007-04-27T16:42:27Z

Olly:

[[Image:sandwich.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]

A '''sandwich''' is the name given to a popular lunchtime food consisting of a filling (such as [[meat]] or [[cheese]], sandwiched between two pieces of [[bread]]. Condiments such as [[mayonnaise]], [[ketchup]], and [[mustard]] are commonly used to add extra flavour to the sandwich. The beauty of the sandwich is that the possibilities for fillings are almost endless and that the bread keeps one from getting the filling on one's hands allowing them to be eaten anywhere.

==Bread==

Sandwiches can be made with almost any kind of bread. Popular sandwich breads include:

Wholemeal Bread

The [[French]] [[Baguette]]

Soda Bread

Black Bread

The Bread Roll (also known as a "cob", "barm", "bampot" or "oven bottom")

==Popular Sandwiches==

The [[knuckle sandwich]] is a traditional English factory worker's lunch.

The [[Double Pork Sandwich]] is another traditional [[English]] dish.

The "BLT" consists of bacon, lettuce and tomato.

The Beef Roll consists of sliced beef and [[horseradish]] on a bread roll

The Bombay Roll consists of sweet and sour [[chicken]], lettuce and soy sauce on a bread roll and was popular in [[ports]] where trade was done with the [[Orient]].

The Bacon sandwich is a popular breakfast item and consists of bacon and either [[brown sauce]] or tomato [[ketchup]]

The chip butty consists of a buttered bap, cob or soft roll filled with hot freshly fried [[chips]].

==Sandwich Trivia==

It is thought to be named after the 4th Earl of Sandwich, John Montagu, although he never used nor sought to perpetuate the term. Sandwiches had existed long before the birth of Lord Sandwich. In fact the earliest known example of a sandwich is thought to be the [[Paschal lamb]] and [[matzo]] combination eaten by [[Hillel the Elder]] at Passover. It is likely that [[Jesus]] ate sandwiches.

==Links==

http://www.sandwich.org.uk/

[[category:food and drink]]

Internet slang

2007-04-27T15:43:02Z

Olly: couple more

'''Internet slang''' is slang that Internet users have created and used, often in instant messaging and forum discussions. They are frequently acronyms, designed to save keystrokes in an attempt to speed up communication.

== List of Internet slang ==

'''ROTFL:''' Rolling On The Floor Laughing

'''LOL:''' Laugh Out Loud

'''ATM:''' At The Moment

'''ASL:''' A request for Age, Sex, and Location.

'''BRB:''' Abbreviation for Be Right Back

'''IM:''' Abbreviation for Instant Messaging.

'''U:''' you

'''Ur:''' your, you're, you are

'''2:''' to, too, two

'''4:''' for, four

'''l8r:''' later

'''BBL:''' be back later

'''BBIAB:''' be back in a bit

'''GG:''' gotta go, got to go, good game

'''Pwn:''' Defeat someone, misspelling of "own"

'''Pwnt:''' If someone "pwns" you, you have been pwnt

'''IANAL:''' Sometimes IANALB, "I am not a lawyer (but)" said right before (usually) poor legal advice.

'''IIRC:''' If I remember correctly

'''WYSIWYG:''' What you see is what you get, also a word processing editor type.

'''L33T''' Stands for Elite

'''Noob''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience and refuse to acknowledge their difficulty with the task.

'''Newb''' Person is unskilled at whatever task they are trying to preform due to lack of experience

'''GDR''' Grinning, Ducking and Running. Usually typed right after making a groan-inducing joke.

'''D00d''' [[L33tsp43k]] spelling of "dude".

'''ffs''' For fancy's sake. Expresses exasperation.

'''stfu''' Shut the fancy up.

'''AFAIK''' As far as I know

'''AFAICT''' As far as I can tell

'''AFAIAW''' As far as I am aware

'''AFAIR''' As far as I recall/remember

'''AFK:''' Away from keyboard

[[category:internet culture]]

Cardiff

2007-04-27T15:16:20Z

Olly:

{{stub}}

'''Cardiff''' is the capital city of [[Wales]].

Cardiff has an historic castle, and is a modern vibrant city, with many suburbs including Caerphilly, Splott, Barry and Newport.

[[Category:Wales]]
[[Category:Welsh Towns and Cities]]

Kirkcaldy

2007-04-27T14:57:01Z

Olly: /* Famous Lang Touners */

'''Kirkcaldy''' is a major market and manufacturing town in the Kingdom of [[Fife]], eastern [[Scotland]]. It is known as the 'Lang Toun' in deference to its somewhat elongated morphology, strung out along a single main street, its back-side presented to the [[Firth of Forth]] with whose coast the street runs [[parallel]].

It has been a major commercial centre since the late [[medieval]] period, with a trade in [[salt]], [[coal]], and [[wool]], and, in recent centuries, [[whale oil]] and [[linoleum]]. Salt boiling and the boiling of [[whale]] blubber on the beach to extract oil must have given the town an interesting olfactory environment, so it is perhaps unfair that the linoleum industry gets the sole blame for Kirkcaldy's reputation as a malodorous town, as recorded in the poem 'The Boy on the Train' by Mary Campbell Smith, which concludes:

''For I ken mysel' by the queer-like smell''

''That the next stop's Kirkcaddy!''

http://www.spl.org.uk/popular/boy-in-tra.html

== Famous Lang Touners ==

* [[Adam Smith]], economist and Father of Monetarism
* Sir Sandford Fleming, inventor of the [[International Date Line]]
* Robert Adam, architect
* Thurrock Hunt, poet

[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]

Lard

2007-04-27T12:56:52Z

Olly: dripping

[[Image:lard.gif|right|250px|thumb]]
Lard is the fat of a pig, or other animal such as a cow, melted and strained from the tissue whilst cooking. Once cooled, it is pale white in colour and solid. It is sold in blocks similar to [[butter]]. It is alternatively known as "dripping" in some parts of Britain.

==WWII Rationing==

In Britain during WWII, [[rationing]] meant that butter was unavailable for many and lard (which keeps well even at room temperature) started to be used in its place. Lard seasoned with a little salt and pepper and spread on bread (effectively a lard [[sandwich]]) was a staple meal for many during rationing. Lard featured in many WWII propaganda posters aimed at helping wartime families subsist on the small rations available at the time.

==Traditional Recipes==

Although lard was originally used as an oil for the frying of other foods, over the years many recepies have been created using lard as an ingredient. Traditional British delicacies made from lard include lard soup, dripping and beetroot sandwiches, [[Lancashire]] lardy cakes and "lardy bombers", pastry cases filled with seasoned lard and deep fried.

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Talk:Bourneville

2007-04-27T11:48:10Z

Olly:

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-04-27T11:45:54Z

Olly: indent

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.

This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

===Some responses===
To David R:
First of all the question does not assume that anything starts off being 'primitive', and moves onto something 'advanced'. You have inserted this language into the debate, not me. In addition, how can you doubt the validity of their research without actually reading it? What on earth can you mean by the statement "physically, we have always been alright"; physically, we have fitted into the ecological niche that we are fit for. It seems to me that 'alright' is a judgemental term about quality.

To Olly
You are wrong. The notion of 'genetic distance' between two species is a demonstrable fact. We can analyse DNA to find out the number of base pairs that are different, and can determine how far apart two species are. What will be contentious to the creationists is to go that step further and say that two species which are close genetically, such as humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor. In these terms, the chimpanzee appears to have undergone more genetic mutations than humans (a lot more), so in that sense it is more evolved. I am not saying that chimpanzees are the 'most evolved' animal on the planet, just that they are 'more evolved' than humans, by virtue of having a greater number of base pair changes from their common ancestor. Their survival is a function of the base pair changes, and for the purposes of this debate, is totally irrelelvant.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bourneville

2007-04-27T11:39:50Z

Olly:

Aberdeen

2007-04-27T11:37:22Z

Olly: typo; added suburb

The third largest city in [[Scotland]], '''Aberdeen''' is located in the north east of Scotland, between the mouths of the rivers Dee and Don (collectively known as the tweedles, from the Scots word "tweed" which means river).

The city's motto is ''Gie Ye The Bowk'' which, roughly translated from the [[Scots]], means ''Give Your All''.

Aberdeen is the major logistical center of the [[North Sea]] [[oil]] industry and is also famous as a [[fishing]] port and a center of educational excellence. From late Medieval times until the late 19th century, Aberdeen was home to as many universities as the whole of [[England]].

Aberdeen is known as the [[Granite]] City (sometimes also The Silver City with the Golden Sands) from the stone used in the construction of its many fine public buildings. A person from Aberdeen is called an Aberdonian. Aberdonians have a reputation for stinginess and, it is alleged, copper wire was invented by two Aberdonians fighting over a penny. Aberdeen is the least religious city in Scotland. <ref>http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ACCI/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1726&sID=332</ref> As a result of its involvement in the oil industry Aberdeen is home to many foreign nationals. There are large communities of Americans, French, Dutch, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Poles, Chileans, Venezuelans, Outer Mongolians, Nepalese and Filipinos. The richest of these live in the salubrious suburb of Torry, which lies south of the River Dee; the 'millionaire's row' on the waterfront boasts extensive views of the riverscape and city centre. Other suburban districts of note include Sandilands, Mastrick, Kincorth, Ferryhill, Altens and Bridge of Don.

===Sport===

[[Aberdeen FC]] (nickname: the Dons) is the city's only senior football club. Home matches are played at Pittodrie whose name derives from the Pictish for dung heap. The current manager is [[Jimmy Calderwood]].

===Famous Aberdonians===

* Robbie Shepherd
* Buff Hardie
* John Laurie
* Denis Law
* Willie Pullar

There are also cities called Aberdeen in [[Texas]], [[South Dakota]], [[Wyoming]], [[Utah]], [[California]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Alabama]] in the [[United States]], and [[Northern Australia]], [[New South Wales]], and [[Tasmania]] in [[Australia]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]

[[Category: United Kingdom]]

[[Category: UK Towns and Cities]]

[[Category: United Kingdom]]

[[Category: Scotland]]

Talk:Bourneville

2007-04-27T11:34:02Z

Olly: New page: It's '''Bournville'''. Not sure how to fix that.

It's '''Bournville'''. Not sure how to fix that.

Talk:Chip shop

2007-04-27T11:29:43Z

Olly:

How can you not mention the fact that in renowned glaswegian chippies they offer such delicacies as battered pizza, battered mars bars and battered ice cream?--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html

[[Image:300px-Deep-fried mars bars.JPG | thumb | left]] Now doesn't that look delicious?
:Yes it does. Can you add the picture to the article? [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. We could have sections on the various differences in regional and national cuisine served in these establishments. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Will add it later if someone else hasn't done so by then.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: merger. I don't think this should be merged. The chip shop (or 'chippie') is a very distinctive cultural, as well as culinary, institution specific to Britain and Ireland.

How can anyone talk of merging this article. It;s probably the best one on Conservapedia. I think we should go for featured status. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

"Fish Bits" are called "scraps" in Birmingham and Humberside. Also mayonnaise is offered in Birmingham chippies although I am unaware as to whether this has anything to do with Dutch or indeed Belgian immigrants. Not sure if any of this info is apposite. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

2007-04-27T09:41:19Z

Olly: it's Irn Bru, not Irn Brue. And it's made in Scotland from girders.

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]]; about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbour England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish Highlands, as are most of the nations highest mountains.

==Union with England==
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognised as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 MPs to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish

==Fame==
Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England{{fact}}, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]] and the [[Loch Ness Monster]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, chanty wrassling (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], curling, tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavoured carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]
[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-04-27T09:28:51Z

Olly:

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.

This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

===Some responses===
To David R:
First of all the question does not assume that anything starts off being 'primitive', and moves onto something 'advanced'. You have inserted this language into the debate, not me. In addition, how can you doubt the validity of their research without actually reading it? What on earth can you mean by the statement "physically, we have always been alright"; physically, we have fitted into the ecological niche that we are fit for. It seems to me that 'alright' is a judgemental term about quality.

To Olly
You are wrong. The notion of 'genetic distance' between two species is a demonstrable fact. We can analyse DNA to find out the number of base pairs that are different, and can determine how far apart two species are. What will be contentious to the creationists is to go that step further and say that two species which are close genetically, such as humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor. In these terms, the chimpanzee appears to have undergone more genetic mutations than humans (a lot more), so in that sense it is more evolved. I am not saying that chimpanzees are the 'most evolved' animal on the planet, just that they are 'more evolved' than humans, by virtue of having a greater number of base pair changes from their common ancestor. Their survival is a function of the base pair changes, and for the purposes of this debate, is totally irrelelvant.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-04-26T15:29:05Z

Olly:

Loch Ness

2007-04-26T14:56:08Z

Olly: pluralised 'geologist'

'''Loch Ness''' is the largest lake in [[Great Britain]].
It is 23 miles long, one mile wide, and almost 900 feet deep in places thus making a full search of the lake unfeasible.

Geologists believe that the present day Loch Ness dates from the end of the [[Ice Age]].<ref>According to secular scientists, this lasted 20,000 years and finished 10,000 years ago, and was the most recent of several. According to creationary scientists, the Ice Age lasted a few hundred years, and occurred in the centuries following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]</ref>
During the ice age, the Great Glen was occupied by a huge glacier which filled the valley above the level of the present watershed, and extended into the Moray Firth.
This glacier found the shattered rock along the fault easy to erode, which accounts for the great depth of Loch Ness to 600 feet below sea-level.
The underwater perimeter of the lake is glacially smoothed and very steep.
Above Foyers Bay at the deepest section, there is 500 feet of water only 60 feet out from the bank.

Loch Ness is most famous for the mythical creature known as the [[Loch Ness Monster]] (or "Nessie") which is said to inhabit the loch.
In 2004, a news team from the [[British]] Channel 5 created an animatronic model of Nessie, and placed it in the water.
That very same day, large numbers of sightings were reported, in the same area where the model was roaming.<ref>[http://www.crawley-creatures.com/recent/lucy.htm Loch Ness Monster: The Ultimate Experiment].</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Scottish Lochs]]

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-26T09:50:55Z

Olly: current revision

This phrase,
*''akin to racism and sexism.''
has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any [[junk science]] citations that make that claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:The issue of whether people are born homosexual or not does not affect the fundamental similarities between discrimination in terms of gender, race and sexuality. If you want to make an argument for why discrimination based on sexuality is o.k, where as the other two are not, then go ahead and make it and we can discuss whether your right. Otherwise, don't confuse the issues. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question of whether one is born homosexual is certainly not a settled matter, in EITHER direction. Your claims of junk science not withstanding. Still, as Orgone points out it is immaterial to the comparison. Would you not consider discrimination against someone based on their religion to be "akin to racism and sexism"? One is not "born Catholic" for example, one has to choose it... how is that any different from your argument? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 13:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Deletions?==
Wow, within the last few minutes almost all of the article has been deleted. I thought it was a lot more useful with all that detail and the example of the murder of a homosexual. Why was all of that deleted? I'm not sure the super-conciseness of the article in its current state is in lines with Conservapedia standards. It should be at least longer than a sentence. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed! The article was starting to take shape before the ever predictable hand of Conservative came in. Why did you delete all of that valid information Conservative? Surely you should have posted on the discussion page '''first''' before simply deleteing it? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Fresh start==

Article should distinguish betweeen
#Accusations of "homophobia" against someone who (A) says that homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible or a church; (B) says that homosexuals can become straight with counseling; or (C) makes any other general statement about homosexuality
#Adverse actions taken against individuals, such as literal [[gay-bashing]], i.e., beating up homosexuals for "looking or acting queer"

Another related topic could be [[Discrimination against homosexuals]].

But we should not adopt the [[gay rights]] perspective which deliberately conflates irrational fear and hatred of people with principled objections to sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Assuming homosexuality is a sin, which not all do. Moreover, does that mean the same people fear and hate "fornicators" the same as homosexuals? I think not. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:51, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, Colin, I haven't even gotten started yet. I'm planning to open up Pandora's box and jump inside with a big can of DDT. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed regarding your first point, why do we need more than a sentence to distinguish between those things? Why not incorporate it into what was there already. Your second point seems to support my point that Conservative should not have deleted the example I gave of an homophobic attack. I don't think a fresh start is needed and we should work with what is already here! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==The science==

Here's a cite and some material, [http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Theraphy on Homosexuality, 2003.

:''There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature, as described earlier. There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined. ... Blumenfeld and others are doing the same with the term homophobia. Their purpose may be sincere and in some contexts useful. However, the approach is unscientific and not useful in the diagnostic/therapeutic sphere. It can even be used by some individuals in an anti-therapeutic manner.

:''Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific and decidedly anti-therapeutic.

:''There is no doubt that homophobia exists. There is also no doubt that there are rationalized and irrational anti-homosexual attitudes. However, it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric. With this in mind, let us examine the topic of homophobia, as would be correctly defined and limited as a true phobic reaction.

IOW, homphobia is psychiatric diagnosis, i.e. they are [[handicapped]] persons, and it appears [[bigot]]s are intent upon systematically persecuting and discriminating against these handicapped victims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nonsense, are you joking? Tell me your being sarcastic! There may be nothing inherently immoral with homo'''phobia''' ''per se'', just as there is nothing inherently immoral in '''any phobia''', like arachnophobia, say. But there ''is'' a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia, and in condemning this behavior you are not: "''systematically persecuting and discriminating against handicapped victims."'', in the same way that pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis, but in condemning people who go around setting fire to buildings, people are not being bigots, they are just pointing out that burning people and their possessions is wrong. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 13:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
*''there ''is'' a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia''
:This is a diagnosable psychiatric condition. They are ''legally'' handicapped. Persecuting them is discrimination.
*''pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis''
:Not all pyromaniacs are [[arson]]ists, just as not all homophobes commit crimes of violence, either. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that persecuting someone because of a psychiatric condition is discrimination. It is not persecution, however, to disagree with discriminatory behavior, no matter what its motive. In which case i support the creation of an article for homophobia as a psychiatric condition, and a separate article dealing with discrimination against homosexuals in general. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Surely by creating a page that deals soley with the psychiatric condition and neglects to mention discrimination is like giving homophobes an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals! Why do we always need two articles, one to describe the subject matter, one to slander the idea with all contentious issues on this site. There is no reason these two things cannot be included on the same page. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone nailed the issue. And something should probably be said about the discrimination homophobes have suffered, and the utter insensitivity of thier oppressors in trying to criminalize mentally handicap people. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I should point out that while homophobia may be considered a psychiatric diagnosis by some, i personally don't see that as '''any kind of excuse''' on behalf of homophobes for discriminatory behavior against homosexuals. In other words, for me the separation of the articles would be a technical thing, because its true that not all homophobes ''necessarily'' discriminate against homosexuals. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::RobS, in comparison to the discrimination of homosexuals by homophobes, the discrimination against homphobes is negligible. Name one case of an "anti-homophobic" attack! Orgone, whether '''all''' homophobes discrimnate against homosexuals or not, discrimination happens. Any article that tackles homophobia must talk about the discrimination that homophobia causes. I am not saying we should put a theme through the article saying "homophobia is bad" I'm merely saying that the two are not just related issues, they are indeed the same issue. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::::MatteeNeutra, I agree that fundamentally they are the same issue, because i believe that homophobia is the ultimate source of all discrimination against homosexuals (even if it gets dressed up in religious doctrines or cultural traditions over time, see the [http://www.eve-tribune.com/index.php?no=1_26&page=4 classic monkey experiment].) But for the purposes of this website, where people want to separate off psychological causes for their own reasons, it probably makes sense to concede this ground and fight them elsewhere. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 18:07, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Odd, how on the [[Evolution]] articles all we here is how holy and undefiable science is; then when we prove how a scientific term and medical diagnosis was hijacked to serve a poltical agenda, science can take a back seat to stereotypes and prejudices. The irony of it all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Not really, a truly empirical, scientific approach would draw out the links between the cultural and sociological phenomenon of discrimination against homosexuals, and its root cause in the individual psychological phenomenon of homophobia. However, your emphasis on treating cause so separately from effect seems to be just to leave room for other causes of discrimination against homosexuals, namely so-called moral objections of the type Ed Poor calls "principled objections to sin". To argue on this website that these sorts of religious doctrines are merely cultural constructs which originate from human psychology, and not moral absolutes which come direct from God, would be to fight a loosing battle. Please forgive me if I'm attributing a more malign intent behind your line of argument than is really there, but thats the way it appears to me. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 21:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::In the mid to late 70s, the American Psychiatric Association, through whatever it's internal processes, decided to stop considering homosexuality a disease. They based this decision upon decades of research that essentially maintained the root cause of a homosexuals psychiatric problems was stigmatization and being an outcast. So the new form of treatment, i.e. not calling it a disease at all, was meant to "normalize" or embrace the homosexual, accept him as he is.

:::::::When this occured, it was not a unanimous decision among psychiatrists. Neither did dissenters in the psychiatric profession have their licenses pulled, or treated as quakes, who held to the view homosexuality was a treatable disorder. However, the profession does not recognize the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disease. When homosexuality was "normalized", the doctor essentially told the patient to go home because he was cured now. Nonetheless, a few still showed up the following week and said, "Doc, I don't feel cured, and I need help". So doctors who dissented from the decision to "normalize" homosexuality, in order to avoid practicing quack medicine and get their licenses pulled, returned to the textbooks to find what the patients problem was. And phobias, like homophobia, are still psychiatric diseases recognized by the APA and still on the books. It was discovered in many cases, the patient didn't like himself, so the diagnosis of homophobia has virtually taken the place for many who prior to the 70s were diagnosed with the disease of homosexuality. It's not hard to see how in actual fact, homophobia-bashing is simply another form of gay-bashing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Ok, i can see now how we got in to this cycle of debate, there are a lot of issues at stake here, some of a real Chicken-and-Egg style: Is someone unhappy because they are homosexual ''per se'', or unhappy because they are ''made to feel'' unhappy about being homosexual? How far is homophobia linked to latent-homosexuality? Is the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disease in itself an anti-homosexual phenomenon? Where do we draw the line between proximal psychological causes of discrimination against homosexuals (homophobia) and distal cultural causes of discrimination against homosexuals (anti-homosexualism in general)? How far is homophobia linked to direct anti-homosexual behavior? These are all controversial issues, all i can say is that I disagree profoundly with the idea that homosexuality is in itself a disease, and the idea that it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals. These principles are not incompatible with the idea that homophobia is a psychological diagnosis. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: That is all very good analysis and you have an excenllent grasp of the issues. And you're a good writer. Homosexuality has not been recognized as a diagnosis now since 1973 or sometime thereafter; it still was criminal conduct in many states and localities into the 1980s (and is criminal in many Western & non-Western nations still). Prior to the APA dropping the diagnosis, gays had the double whammy -- it was considered a disease ''and'' it was crime. "Legalization" came shortly after "normalization" by the medical community. But I think you can see, many profoundly disturbed psyciatric patients were not cured simply the day after the APA dropped the diagnosis.

::::::::: Homophobia is a recognized diagnosis, however it is not a crime. This abstract [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ here] says,
::::::::::'' existing measures of homophobia have been inadequately psychometrically evaluated and therefore it is not clear whether currently this construct can be accurately measured. It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.''
:::::::::translated means, while homophobia remains a recognized diagnosis in the psychiatric community, there is no overall agreement on what it is, and it is concluded ''the misuse'' of the term making it an ''illegitimate pejorative'' is reminisent of the old days when the APA felt the diagnosis of homosexuals added to their stigmatization, which was cause of all the problems in the first place. And being stigmatized, they were abused with pejoritives making them outcasts. The way ''homophobia'' is used today as a pejoritive, is much like the bad old days. And not by coincidence, true homophobes are most likely to be homosexuals themselves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This requires studying sources such as the link provided above; while homosexuality is no loner considered a mental disease (as it once was by the APA), phobias, and specifically homophobia ''still'' is considered as diagnosiable mental condition by the American Psycriatric Asscociation. Now, here is the kicker: most diagnosed homophobes are so-called "latent homosexuals", their fear of homosexuals being personal, i.e. that they may cross the line from latent attraction into an active homosexual lifestyle. In this sense, psyciatrists are ''still'' "treating" homosexuals, not homosexuality as a mental disease, but latent homosexuals fear of acting on their impulses. This is the true, scientific, and medical description of the disease.

:::What we've experienced in recent years, however, is a media and political campaign to shame people with a medical condition. And an investigation will most likely reveal, the term has been misused. The people who allegedly "discriminate", in most cases (1) have not been diagnosed, (2) are probably '''''not''''' textbook homophobes. Effectively what's happened is, a certifiable mental condition, for poltical purposes, has been turned into an attack term. And many of those accused of "homophobia", are nothing of the sort. ''Why'' this has happened, I can present musings and theories, but let's just stick to the facts of the definitions of terms, and the science to support them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, I do see what youre getting out. Differentiating the clinically diagnosed homophobes from the people who (for want of a better phrase) don't like queers! Homophobe is now in common usage to describe the latter of those two. Perhaps an in depth definition of the psychiatric condition could be put forward on a separate page while we deal with the common usage here. This is, after all, the page that people will search for and if people want to read about the clinical condition they should be directed there. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Exactly. The problem here is, turning a certifiable mental condition into a politcal attack term may itself be discrimintation against the mentally handicapped. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The use of the term in itself is not so much a "political attack term" but a method in which to identify a distinct group of people who hold a certain viewpoint. I doubt many self confessed homophobes think of themselves having a clinical problem! People hear the common usage all the time and most people will not be aware of the clinical connotations of the word. Therefore, does it not make sense to portray the common usage on the Homophobia page and put a clear direct to the article describing the clinical condition at the top of the Homophobia page?

::::::On a side note, this all seems a bit pointless considering Ed Poor is apparently about to go to town on this article! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)RobS, what's your source for stating that homophobia is a clinical diagnosis? It's not a specific diagnosis according to the APA diagnostic manual. It could fall under Specific Phobia, but there's no diagnosis of homphobia. And for someone to meet the criteria for that diagnosis, they'd need (a) marked, persistent fear that's excessive and unreasonable of gay people (b) exposure to gay people would provoke an immediate and fairly severe anxiety response (c) they'd have to recognize it as an unreasonable fear (d) it would have to interfere with daily functioning, among other things. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Murray, see cite at the top of this subhead ==The science==

:MatteeNeutra, This proves an interesting test case; there apparantly is a difference between "common usage", and "liberal common usage", but I do not wish to derail a constructive discussion with partisan politics. Point is, the so-called "common usage" is a misnomer. And it was done by certain agenda driven groups, with the assistance of a sympathetic agenda driven media & entertainment industry, and probably even academics. Our purpose here at CP is not to rubber stamp causes like this, or to promote discrimination and criminalization of a certifiably mentally-handicapped condition. Quite the contrary, our Commandments require us to use facts, not common misnomers.

:Now, let's discuss some of these dissenting concerns, and use an illustration. In the Matthew Shepard case for instance, Shepard's convicted killer I beleive may have been diagnosed as a genuine homophobe, and while we don't have access to his medical records, this may be a case were a latent homosexual homophobe acted violently. Perhaps now we understand one reason it is considered a mental illness by the American Psyciatric Association. But that still is not to say all homophobes are violent homophobes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Rob. For clarity's sake, this is not an official psychiatric diagnosis. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Phobia's are an official psychiatric diagnosis, of which homophobia is still recognized as one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== current revision ==

Tells us what homophobia is not. Most encyclopaedic.

Talk:Liberal/Arch1

2007-04-25T14:56:38Z

Olly: /* European Liberals */

== This is a mess! Can someone archive some of it? ==

----

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

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

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

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

This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. [[User:Order|Order]] 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

In fact the UK Liberal Democrats are split on financial matters. Many traditional liberal supporters advocate a higher rate of taxation for high earners, for example, but there is a growing centre-right faction which favours a lower flat rate of taxation for all. Most UK Lib Dems however are broadly socially liberal in the classical sense - the party evolved from an amalgamation between the SDP, a break-off from the Labour party by centrist anti-militants, and the old Liberal Party of Lloyd George which had been mostly dormant for 50 or 60 years.

Traditionally the Lib Dems were the minority centre party between Labour and Conservatives - these days some might put them to the left of New Labour, even though they are expressly not Socialist. -- [[User:Olly|Olly]] 10:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

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

== Parochial definition ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Vandalism?==

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

== Aliens? ==

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

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

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

Which is why I don't consider Bush a conservative. right_wing2 8 April 2007

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

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

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

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

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

== Increased taxes? ==

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

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

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

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

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

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

== Commandments? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

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

:For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)

Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

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

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

== Incidentally ==

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

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

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll set some up.

== False Statement ==

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

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

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

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

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

It's a difference of who should provide- individuals through voluntary charity, or forced through government programs. A more accurate definition might be to add the words 'forced... through government programs' to the definition. right_wing2 7 April 2007

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

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

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

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

:''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list... --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

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

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

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

Liberalmedia- The list of liberal beliefs, possibly changed since your post, notes that this is defining liberals in the US today.
right_wing2 7 April 2007

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

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism in the US- additional
Liberals believe in the rights of 'groups' over the rights of 'individuals'
Liberals tend believe that the best way to help people is through government programs
right_wing2 8 April 2007

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==

The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

::This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.

::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...

::..who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]

Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::''Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department.''
::My Historical Revisionism Sense is tingling....
::[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401321.html] No U.S. Backup Strategy For Iraq
::[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=atX8qSnykzIQ&refer=top_world_news]Biden Says U.S. Forces in Iraq Insufficient to Fight Insurgents
::I can probably find a few hundred more like that if I try. Bush started this war without sufficient troops, sufficient body armor, or anything resembling a good plan. Blaming it on the goods in uniform who swore an oath to obey his orders is pretty shabby. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war.

:P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.[[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

:Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

:It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

:And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::SHUT UP OR THE TERRORISTS WIN, Jack. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

*Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Liberals try to draw their morality and worldview from actual physical events and their own conciences, rather than basing it all on a 1700-year-old collection of legends. That is why they are ALL EVIL AND MUST BE KILLED '''FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN'''!!1!!1@!!one!! --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30

:What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. [[User:Order]]

It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing. One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people. Similiarly, isolationists like the [[America First]] Committee, were very often called fascists. The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic. See below for further discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually that may not be supported by the facts; looking at the pure politics of the matter, GOP is moreless united in support of the President's policy, whereas the Democratic Party, in both the electorate & members of Congress--''prior'' to the elections and now--is divided on the issue. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The truth is one can support an ideal without supporting the way it's executed. But you know that, because you're a smart guy. You just choose not to know it right now. Oh, and you're also equating the GOP with conservatives. They're not the same. You know that, too.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Looking at the discussion, you'll see the qualifications: "indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior...etc.", and "looking at the pure politics of the matter" where I go onto cite both major parties by name. So the objection you state above could legitimately be refered to as a "non-responsive response". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly as you say [User:RobS|RobS: the democratic party is diveded on this issue. So don't put in the definition of liberal (which isn't the same as democrat, but lets forget about that for a sec) that they all oppose/support a certain policy, because they don't actually agree. [[User:Order]]

== '''Foreign Policy''' ==

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.

:Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

===Disputed text===
* Opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref> democracy <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

===References===
<references/>

'''Other sources''' 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#References
:A wealth of sources.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.
:According to Wikipedia, "ANSWER was one of several groups organizing the U.S. component of the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, which was, across the globe, the largest anti-war rally that has ever taken place.[1] ANSWER sponsored emergency demonstrations just before the launch of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, on March 15, 2003, which according to its website drew 100,000 people each in San Francisco and Washington. "
:: Two problems with these links. 1) Many antiwar protester were liberal, indeed, but many weren't. Just because most weren't conservative doesn't mean that they were automatically liberal. 2) Many liberals were supporting the invasion of Iraq, because they believed it would advance human rights and democracry. Conclusion: War protestors '''not equal too''' liberals. [[User:Order]]
*[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm This Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil], Robert Fisk, January 18, 2003, The Independent.
:Robert Fisk has twice interviewed bin Laden, and the earlier interview is incomplete in all internet versions, if memory serves me.

::This article is not opposing foreign policy advancing human rights, it is opposing foreign policy which the article calims is to advance oil interests, dressed up as advancing human rights. That is Fisk's point, like it or not. [[User:Order]]

:::Exactly. Bush, as the President, articulated US foreign policy in the same vein his predessors had going back to Wilson; hence, Bush's articulation of US foreign policy, in his role as the Chief Executive, '''is what American foreign policy is'''. Period. Fisk, whom nobody elected, questions the integrity of this claim. Fine. That is his free speech perogative. Many persons who self-identify as "liberal" signed on to this opinion. Fine. Hence we have the logical conclusion,
:::''"many persons who self-identify as 'liberal' oppose American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy."'''
:::This is not my invention; it is thier own language and actions. And further evidence is added by the fact that while in 2003, extreme elements who may not have been ''real liberals'', initiated this opposition movement. Since then however, more moderate elements, many likewise claiming the mantle of "liberal", now actively advocate withdrawing support from a liberal democracy elected by universal suffarage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The problem is that Fisk et al. just don't believe the president when he says that he does it to further human rights. Maybe, they are even in favor of policy that advaces human right they just don't see it in the policies of the president. If anything it should be ''Refusal to see the current foreign policy to advance human rights''.[[User:Order]] 27 March.
::::A problem for the current adimintration is that the elected government, and the majority of Iraqis also want the Americans to leave. You might argue that this is not wise to do, but hey still want it. [[User:Order]] 27 March.

===Discussion===
Let's examine footnote 2, ''"The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"'', extract:
:"Answer has had a strong hand in organizing many of the substantial anti-war gatherings since September 11, 2001. A few scratches at the surface of the organization reveals just how far outside the mainstream its ideology resides.

:The lead group in Answer is the International Action Center. Led by the former attorney general turned extreme-left activist Ramsey Clark, Answer is considered widely to be a front organization for the notorious Workers World Party. The WWP is a communist group, formed in the late 1950s as a breakaway faction from the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.

:"The WWP decided it would support even the most dictatorial of Communist leaders if their mission was to undermine America and its allies — something that didn’t sit well with most Trotskyites — and its final rift with the Socialist Workers Party was over the WWP’s support of the crushing Soviet incursion into Hungary in 1956. The WWP went on to back the Chinese government and its tanks against the dissidents in Tiananmen Square, tout the virtue of the North Korean regime and openly state its support for dictators like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

:And the organization’s wider agenda was well on display at a rally that preceded the march in Washington, D.C., this past Saturday: A hodgepodge of speakers representing diverse leftist causes took the stage — from supporters of Fidel Castro’s Cuba to opponents of the Philippine government. And, predictably, the Palestinian cause held center stage, with at least a dozen speakers, wearing kaffiyehs wrapped around their necks and demanding a full right of return for Palestinian refugees, a stipulation any knowledgeable observer of the conflict understands as a death knell for Israel.

:Answer’s wider agenda has made it easy for the right to launch attacks on the anti-war movement as it has picked up steam over the last three years. Anytime Answer is involved, the organization becomes an easy and obvious target, as well as a vehicle for criticizing other anti-war activists....

*Yes, <s>Conservative</s>, errr, Rob, I hear you. ;-) Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?

Soooo...this organization was in the forefront of organizing and leading todays anti-war movement before there even was an anti-war movement. And these visionaries call themselves '"liberal", "socialist", and "progresive", and have advocated such progressive reforms as the Tiananmen massacre. Who were the students at Tiananmen? Why they were a Chinese democratic movement stomped out in its infancy, from which the terrorism of the regime has stifled any further democratic hopes for two decades now, and the people remain essentially without any human rights.

The floor is now open for discussion....
:: The floor was open for discussion all the time. It was just you who didn't want to discuss.
: Anyway, at the time of the tienamen massacre, we had a Bush administration. Furthermore, you make the same mistake all over again. Just because a few vocal anti-war protesters claim to speak for all liberals, doens't mean it is true. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

::This makes no sense. Sr. Bush was reponsible for Tiananmen? Lame excuse and irrelevent for '''the fact''' that the heart and soul of this "liberal" anti-war movement today (a) was anti-democratic in the Tainanmen massacre and other occasions; (b) accepted human rights abuses as part of its program. And a further point, the founders and leaders of the current anti-war movement ''also'' are known for thier anti-Semitic views--a fact which reared its head again last election season among ''other'' liberals not associated with ANSWER. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The chinese government was responsible for Tienanmen. You blame liberal for complicity in the Tienanmen massrce, so when you cast the ball, expect it to return. [User:Order]] 26 March 15:30 (AEST)

[[User:Order]] stated, ''interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building''; can we say then Liberals oppose intervention and nation building in Durfur, and President Clinton had nothing to appologize for regarding Rwanda? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Republicans opposed nation building by Clinton, and Liberals nation building by Bush. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
:To wit: [http://www.kronykronicle.com/Articles/ThankClinton.html]

:That does not answer the specific question above. Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent. Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making efforts to advance human rights. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Nobody was pro-Ba'athist a few years ago, just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's. He was perceived as the lesser evil; a few years ago by many liberals, and in the 80s by many conservatives. You have to accept the fact that in foreign policy you have to sometime work with people who are wrong, but are the best alternative of many even worse ones, and it can be even difficult to deterime who is actually the lesser evil. Your allegations are as naive as anti-war allegations against Rumsfeld. Blame me for Realpolitik. [[User:Order]] 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

:::*''Nobody was pro-Ba'athist''
::::See < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest >; reports "between six and ten million people" in 800 cities opposed American foreign policy which advocates human rights democracy, and in favor of insuring the survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime.
:::::Again, they just didn't buy Bushs argument that it had to be done to advance human rights. They were not protesting for Saddam, or against human rights, they were protesting against Bush. You might think that this is the same, but they didn't think like you do.[[User:Order]]
::::::No matter. This discussion about an ideological view will go no where with constantly inject terms like "Bush" "Democrat", or "Republican" into into. So what so we know? The President articluated a policy. People who do not hold the Office of the President rejected the policy, as is their right. What was the policy? Support for human right and democracy. What policy did the persons, without Constitutional authority, reject? Support for human rights and democracy. How do we know this true? The same persons, self-identified as 'liberal", are actively seeking to withdraw American support for the liberal democracy that currently hold power in Iraq. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You ask ''What is the policy?''. Your answer is: ''Support for human rights and democracy.''. The liberals answer is ''Its not about human rights and democracy.''. Both are opinions. And both have no place in this article. But I will edit your edit, to reflect the refusal of liberal to see these policies as advancement of human rights and democracy. Because at it now it pushes one opinion. [[User:Order]] 27 March, 12:55 (AEST)
::::::::The policy of the US Government is not an opinion, it's a policy. The opinion of private citizens that opposes the official US Government policy of advocating human rights and democracy abroad is an opinion.
:::::::::Two issues are with this: First, you do believe the claims of the policy makers about their aims. Second, you do believe that the policy is suited to achieve the aim. Lets take the "Defense of Marriage Act" by Clinton as an example.
:::::::::*Firstly, you may or may not believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage.
:::::::::*Secondly, even if you do believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage, you might think that Clinton's "Defense of Marriage Act" fails to do so.
:::::::::*Furthermore, you might think that ''defending marriage'' is none of the states business.
:::::::::*And finally, you might think that marriage should be abolished as an old fashioned institute, rather than defended.

:::::::::In the same spirit you have:
:::::::::*People who just don't believe Bush, when he says he does it for human rights.
:::::::::*There are people who say that they believe his intentions but that that his foreign policy is not achieving his aim.
:::::::::*Then there are people that claim that the US should not use the military to advance human rights and democracy.
:::::::::*And finally you have people who reject human rights and democracy.
:::::::::And what you do is, you lump everybody together in the last group, even though it is really just a minority of those who oppose Bush's foreign policy. Just like it was just a minority of those who opposed Clinton Defense of Marriage act, who opposed marriage. [[User:Order]] 27 March 13:45 (AEST)

::::::::::OK, so they don't beleive the government is sincere. Big deal. Nonetheless, that puts them in opposition to the governments declared policy. Secondly, they are just a random collection of private citizens--without any Constitutional authority whatsoever (other than thier individual First Amendment rights) to pulbicly express thier opposition to the governments stated policy of fostering democracy and human rights abroad. Third, the government has a track record now of (a) removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and assisting a democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track record of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
:::::::::::Everything up to ''By contrast'' is kind of true. But our ''liberal friends'' would deny that they argure in favor of fascism and they would deny that they want to undermine a liberal democracy. You have to give them the right to sincerely believe that they don't, just like Bush has the right to sincerly believe that his policy is fostering democracy in the Middel East. That you or I think that they are mistaken doesn't matter. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::The Defense of Marriage Act is not really a very good analogy, primarily because there is a difference between law and policy. And Bill Clinton isn't a dictator, the President has no legislative authority.
::::::::::There is a difference between law and policy, but in both cases you can have people who disagree with it for various reasons. And in a way, people should be more inclined to subscribe to a law, than to a policy, because as you said, a president doesn't have any legislative authority. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::Beleive it or not, there is a strong parallel between this discussion and the one about homosexuals in the Nazi party. In both instances, early on extreme elements (here it was ANSWER and other radicals, there it was gay stormtroopers) who advocated a position that was outside the mainstream. Over time, moderate elements adopted thier radical views and gave it legitimacy, so that it did not seem radical, extreme and fringe anymore. Once it became a majority, and had the reigns of power, then these anti-democratic and anti-human rights positions can be implemented, and they don't seem so radical now that so-called "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
:::::::::::This is moving off-topic. But lets me say this much. In the beginning of the 3rd Reich there were gays who were pushing the Nazi agenda, but there were no Nazis who pushed the gay agenda. Big difference, to gay liberals who push a gay liberal agenda.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00
::::::::::::Actually I think it's right on topic cause it gives us an excellant understanding of both controversy in both articles. What began as fringe became mainstream in both instances. On the Hitler page we are right a the Night of the Long Knives; this is a crucial point, cause it was here that Nazism gained respectability by the middle class when it abandoned it's "extremist" roots. But now we see it was middle class respectable folk who actually unkowningly or unwittingly actually embraced extremism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It is off-topic here, especially if we repeat our gay Nazi discussion all over. I'll take this discussion to your talk page [[User_talk:RobS#Night_of_the_long_knives|Talk RobS ''Night of the long_knives]]. See you there. [[User|Order]] 27 March 17:15 (AEST)

::::::::::Your arguement is little more than Bush ''et al'' are bad guys and suffer from bad polling numbers. So what. It's just your opinion, and I can't find the words "opinion polls" anywhere in the US Constitution. But in the final analysis, we see so-called "liberals" no longer advocate human rights and democracy, and if anything, they, and now their "middle class" allies, have become more strident, stringent, and hostile to those long held goals of US foreign policy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Where did I say that Bush is a bad guy? I said liberals have the right to believe that Bush is a bad guy, and not believe his claims. And Bush has bad poll numbers, indeed. People got a hangover from interventionist policies and are tending towards isolationist positions. Not for the first time in American history.[[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00

::::::::Not to get sidetracked, but this discussion is similiar to athiesm. For example, I may hold the opinion that I do not beleive in stop signs, and therefore efforts by others to impose thier morality on me by erecting stop signs does not apply to me, because they can not force me to accept thier law and/or opinion. So watch out when I'm behind the wheel, cause nobody can legislate morality and impose thier value systems on me by forcing me to obey stop signs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*''just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's''
::::Newsflash: Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governors Assoc. Chairman, Gov. Bill Richardson also "shook hands with Saddam" when Richardson "met him in Baghdad" "in the 1980s", likewise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh Saddam was the West's darling in the 80s. And Rumsfeld gave him useful information and weapons in addition to a handshake. But again, neither of them was pro-Ba'athis. They were choosing the lesser evil. [[User:Order]] 27 March.
::::::You've said it twice now [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=66076&oldid=66039][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=next&oldid=67302] of fascism and democracy, fascism is the lesser of two evils. You've convinced me to reinsert the passage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The choice wasn't between fascism and democracy. In the 80s it was a choice between Iraqi fascism and Iranian theocracy and in this decade between state violence by Saddam and civil war between Sunnis and Shia. And don't claim that nobody could have predicted it. Many did. For example a conservative German politician, Toedenhoefer who said (figuratively) ''before'' the war that every day of war in Iraq will lead to one year of terrorism in the Middle East. So, there were concerned people, before the war, who weren't liberal, who found it tough to choose between chaos and Saddam. [User:Order]] 27 March, 13:15 (AEST)

*We again have too beasts here. It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa. We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year. The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.

::(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::How many American soldiers died in Kosovo? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Is that the measure of success? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::(a) It looks like the considered it [http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92895Bosnia.pdf] (b) How diffcult is it for you to understand that Liberals '''unequal''' democrats '''unequal''' Anti-War crowd? [[User:Order]]
::::That is exactly the point in the above language proposed for inclusion. Somehow we got off on a discussion of politcs. Point is "liberals" whoever that group is, I personally don't beleive many of them actually have an ideology, of if they do, they can't tell you what it is. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:'''Comment''': One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at our fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, <s>Conservative</s>, errr, Rob, I hear you. Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?
That was very poor humor. Just frustrated, because the amount of material and posts, makes me lose track. The argument is lost in all the hundreds of posts and documentation, the focus, for me, is lost. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:* Here. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Disputed_text] The Wikipedia technique of talking a matter to death don't work here. That's what conservativism is--not losing focus of one's values and views. Might I suggest the shifting sand of so-called "liberalism" is based upon moods, emotion, fads, fashion, and fancy, hence the difficulting of nailing down what its fundemental core principals are? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, no one but you has been talking anything to death. You are not a plain speaker. You are drowning people in endless citations. Say what it is you want to include! Exactly. Word for word. If it is ok, and proper to the page, I will leave it. If not, like Conservative, I will remove it. Please stop the veiled threats about what you will do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
----
Let's commend Sevenstring for this edit, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=prev&oldid=65762]. Following the discussion closely and weighing the arguments he placed a good powder puff over a blemish that now even turns stern criticism to advantage. Well done! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Internal consistency ==

My impression of Liberalism in the U.S. is that it has many internal contradictions. For example, on abortion, liberals assert a [[woman's right to choose]]. But in economics, they insist on limiting people's choices, favoring all sorts of [[socialist]] schemes.

They say they are for personal freedom but are extremely soft on [[slavery]] in the [[Sudan]] and they never criticize [[Communism]] for its totalitarian dictatorships.

They say they are for human rights, particularly the right not to be killed by one's own government or foreign invaders. But they are utterrly silent on the 60 to 210 million people murdered by Communist governments.

They are fond of pointing out evil in non-Liberals (like [[Adolf Hitler]]) but express admiration for murderous thugs like [[Che Guevera]] and genocidal maniacs like [[Mao Tsu-Tung]].

This list could be extended greatly. On the other hand, we conservatives must now air our own dirty laundry, lest we neglect Nietszched's warning about turning into monsters. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since Hitler believed in a strong central government/welfare state, it is historically incorrect to refer to him as a "Conservative", as we use the term in the United States. IMO. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
**Of course. That's why I tagged him as a non-Liberal. On the other hand, the tag [[right wing]] always carries a painful and insulting connotation of being Hitler-like. You'll surely have noticed how many times liberals have branded US conservative president [[George Bush]] a kind of Hitler, or compared America's only ally in the Middle East - Israel - to Nazis. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed! Don't forget your signature! :p It is the same disinformation as the CE/BCE crap. See the commandments talk page, "Grammar" entry. I know you knew, just was throwing it out there, as I sometimes do, for the confused. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's a good example: Volkswagan was founded as a state enterprise by the Nazi government [http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/vw.htm][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group#History] Hence with this example, we see the Socialist side of the "means of production" employed in the Nazi the state. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:: 'they never criticize [[Communism]] for its totalitarian dictatorships.' I'm a liberal (by Conservapedian standards anyway); I criticise China; that statement is wrong. I'd like some sources for your 'facts', to counter mine - Amnesty International (a liberal organisation? a conservative one? take your pick!) condemns China, for example. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::proposed compromise: "rarely are [[Communist]] totalitarian dictatorships criticized" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, RobS--have you two ever actually TALKED to a so-called "liberal"? Because your view of them sounds like out-takes from a Rush Limbaugh blooper reel. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Vesalius

2007-04-11T21:27:45Z

Olly: New page: almost entirely lifted from Wikipedia. Way to go, idiots! ~~~~

almost entirely lifted from Wikipedia. Way to go, idiots! [[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Iron curtain

2007-04-11T21:26:06Z

Olly:

this article is errant nonsense. the "iron curtain" refers to the BOUNDARY between Soviet, Warsaw Pact nations and "free" western nations, NATO or not. The curtain was not draped OVER the Soviet east. you idiots continue to clown yourselves.

Furthermore, the implication is that the western countries did *not* heavily guard their borders with eastern countries. [[User:Olly|Olly]] 17:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Iron curtain

2007-04-11T21:24:05Z

Olly: New page: this article is errant nonsense. the "iron curtain" refers to the BOUNDARY between Soviet, Warsaw Pact nations and "free" western nations, NATO or not. The curtain was not draped OVER th...