Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sir Clowdisley Shovell

2007-10-30T21:38:36Z

Pachyderm: Brouhght to life, unlike Sir C. S.

'''Sir Clowdisley Shovell''' (or Shovel), 1659-1707 was a British admiral. In a spectacularly eventful life he climbed from his role as a 6 year old cabin boy under a relative, Captain Myngs, in the Second Dutch War (1665-7) to attain the elevated rank of Admiral of the Mediterranean Fleet during the War of Spanish Succession (1702-13).

He probably served at the Battle of Solebay during the Third Dutch War (1672-4), and by 1676 he was in the Mediterranean where commanded the fleet of ships’ boats during the operation to burn the corsair fleet in [[Tripoli]] Harbour. A year later he was promoted to post-captain. He was still only eighteen years old.

Until 1686 he was continuously in action against the Barbary Pirates. But was in England during the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688, when he transferred his allegiance to William and Mary. He commanded a ship in the Battle of Bantry Bay (1692) and was subsequently knighted, and given command of the English squadron in the [[Irish Sea]] during William’ invasion of [[Ireland]].

By the end of the century he was Admiral of the Blue, in charge of the Channel fleet. The War of Spanish Succession found him in the [[Mediterranean]], where he distinguished himself in the capture of [[Gibraltar]] (still a British naval base) and Barcelona, and other engagements against the French. <ref>Shovel helped capture Gibraltar (1704), and assisted at the capture of [[Barcelona]] (1705) [http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/shovell_sir_clowdisley.jsp] </ref>

In 1707 his fleet sailed for [[England]] but encountered an unexpected current and several ships were wrecked on the [[Scilly Isles]]. Sir Clowdisley himself was washed ashore half drowned, where a local woman strangled him for the large ring he was wearing. (She was to admit this on her deathbed many years later, and the ring returned to his family).

The tragedy ended a life that still had much to offer.

Reference: “The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea”

[[Category: History|England]]

Rural Sanitary Authorities

2007-10-30T21:34:38Z

Pachyderm: revivified

The duties of these were assumed by the Rural District Councils created by the Local Government Act of 1894.

[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Rump Parliament

2007-10-30T21:31:18Z

Pachyderm:

The Rump Parliament was created in [[England]] in 1648 when [[Oliver Cromwell]] removed by military force, an army made up of Roundheads, the remaining Parliamentary members supporting Charles I.

[[category:United Kingdom]]
[[category:history]]

Suriname

2007-10-30T14:24:09Z

Pachyderm: Small? Four times larger than Switzerland.,

{{Country
|name =''Republiek Suriname''
|map =Suriname.JPG
|flag =Flag of Suriname.png
|arms =Arms of Suriname.png
|capital =Paramaribo
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Dutch
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Ronald Venetiaan
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =63,251 sq mi
|pop =449,888 (2005)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$2.898 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$5,683 (2005)
|currency =Surinamese dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Suriname''' is a [[South America]]n nation formerly known as Dutch Guiana. Its capital is [[Paramaribo]].

==People==
Most Surinamese live in the narrow, northern coastal plain. The population is one of the most ethnically diverse in the world. Each ethnic group preserves its own culture, and many institutions, including political parties, tend to follow ethnic lines. Informal relationships vary: the upper classes of all ethnic backgrounds mix freely; outside of the elite, social relations tend to remain within ethnic groupings. All groups may be found in schools and the workplace.

==Government==
The Republic of Suriname is a constitutional democracy based on the 1987 constitution. The legislative branch of government consists of a 51-member unicameral National Assembly, simultaneously and popularly elected for a 5-year term.

The executive branch is headed by the president, who is elected by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly or, failing that, by a majority of the People's Assembly for a 5-year term. If at least two-thirds of the National Assembly cannot agree to vote for one presidential candidate, a People's Assembly is formed from all National Assembly delegates and regional and municipal representatives who were elected by popular vote in the most recent national election. A vice president, normally elected at the same time as the president, needs a simple majority in the National Assembly or People's Assembly to be elected for a 5-year term. As head of government, the president appoints a cabinet of ministers. There is no constitutional provision for removal or replacement of the president unless he resigns.

A 15-member State Advisory Council advises the president in the conduct of policy. Eleven of the 15 council seats are allotted by proportional representation of all political parties represented in the National Assembly. The president chairs the council; two seats are allotted to representatives of labor, and two are allotted to employers' organizations.

The judiciary is headed by the Court of Justice (Supreme Court). This court supervises the magistrate courts. Members are appointed for life by the president in consultation with the National Assembly, the State Advisory Council, and the National Order of Private Attorneys.

The country is divided into 10 administrative districts, each headed by a district commissioner appointed by the president. The commissioner is similar to the governor of a U.S. State but serves at the president's pleasure.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Runaldo Ronald Venetiaan
*Vice President--Ramdien Sardjoe
*Foreign Minister--Lygia Kraag-Keteldijk
*Ambassador to U.S.--Jaques R. Kross
*Ambassador to UN--Henry MacDonald
*Ambassador to OAS--Jaques R. Kross

===Foreign Relations===
Since gaining independence, Suriname has become a member of the United Nations, the OAS, and the Non-Aligned Movement. Suriname is a member of the Caribbean Community and Common Market and the Association of Caribbean States; it is associated with the European Union through the Lome Convention. The Netherlands remains Suriname’s biggest donor, but it has been surpassed by the U.S. as a trade partner. Suriname participates in the Amazonian Pact, a grouping of the countries of the Amazon Basin that focuses on protection of the Amazon region's natural resources from environmental degradation. Reflecting its status as a major bauxite producer, Suriname is also a member of the International Bauxite Association. The country also belongs to the Economic Commission for Latin America, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Suriname became a member of the Islamic Development Bank in 1998.

At independence, Suriname signed an agreement with the Netherlands providing for about $1.5 billion in development assistance grants and loans over a 10- to 15-year period. Initial disbursements amounted to about $100 million per year, but were discontinued during military rule. After the return to a democratically elected government in 1991, Dutch aid resumed. The Dutch relationship continued to be an important factor in the economy; with the Dutch insisting that Suriname undertake economic reforms and produce specific plans acceptable to the Dutch for projects on which aid funds could be spent. In 2000, the Dutch revised the structure of their aid package and signaled to the Surinamese authorities their decision to disburse aid by sectoral priorities as opposed to individual projects. In 2001 both governments agreed to spend the remaining development funds to finance programs in 6 different sectors: health care, education, environment, agriculture, housing and governance.

Relations with the Dutch have been complicated by Dutch prosecution of Desi Bouterse in absentia on drug charges, and by legal maneuvering by Dutch prosecutors trying to bring charges relating to the December 1982 murders. (A Dutch appellate court in 2000 found Bouterse guilty of one drug-related charge; the decision was upheld on appeal.)

Bilateral agreements with several countries of the region, covering diverse areas of cooperation, have underscored the government's interest in strengthening regional ties. The return to Suriname from French Guiana of about 8,000 refugees of the 1986-91 civil war between the military and domestic insurgents has improved relations with French authorities. Longstanding border disputes with Guyana and French Guiana remain unresolved. Negotiations with the Government of Guyana brokered by the Jamaican Prime Minister in 2000 did not produce an agreement, but the countries agreed to restart talks after Guyanese national elections in 2001. In January 2002, the presidents of Suriname and Guyana met in Suriname and agreed to resume negotiations, establishing the Suriname-Guyana border commission. In 2004 Guyana brought Suriname before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the case regarding the maritime border dispute; a decision is expected in 2007. An earlier dispute with Brazil ended amicably after formal demarcation of the border.

==Defense==
Surinamese armed forces consist of the national army under the control of the Minister of Defense and a smaller civil police force, which is responsible to the Minister of Justice and Police. The national armed forces comprise some 2,200 personnel, the majority of whom are deployed as light infantry security forces. A small air force, navy, and military police also exist. The Netherlands has provided limited military assistance to the Surinamese armed forces since the election of a democratic government in 1991. In recent years, the U.S. has provided training to military officers and policymakers to promote a better understanding of the role of the military in a civilian government, and also offers significant humanitarian aid. Since the mid-1990s, the People's Republic of China has been donating military equipment and logistical material to the Surinamese Armed Forces. The Netherlands, France, Venezuela, and Brazil also have working relationships with the Surinamese military.

Suriname’s borders are porous; largely uninhabited, unguarded, and ungoverned rain forest and rivers make up the eastern, western, and southern borders, and the navy’s capability to police Suriname’s northern Atlantic coast is limited. Protecting natural resources from illegal exploitation such as unlicensed gold mining is difficult, and significant tax revenue is lost. Porous borders also make Suriname a target for transshipment of drugs. Since 2000, arrests and prosecutions of drug smugglers have increased, partially due to funding and training for police capacity through the U.S. State Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement.

==Economy==
Suriname’s economy has been dominated by the exports of alumina, oil, and gold. Other export products include bananas, shrimp and fish, rice, and lumber. In 2006 alumina accounted for approximately 46.2% of total exports. Government income from the oil sector, however, has surpassed that of the bauxite/alumina sector. Suriname's bauxite deposits have been among the world’s richest. Active in Suriname since 1916, SURALCO, a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), has had a long-standing working relationship with the Australian-owned BHP Billiton.

After two years and an investment of approximately U.S. $130 million, BHP Billiton officially commenced its mining activities at the Kaaimangrasie and Klaverblad mines in 2006. These mines are expected to provide enough bauxite to cover the transition between the closing of the depleted Lelydorp Mine and the possible opening of a mine in the Bakhuis area with estimated reserves of 300 to 400 metric tons. Other proven reserves, sufficient to last until 2045, exist in the east, west, and north of the country. However, distance and topography make their immediate development costly. The government is currently in negotiations with SURALCO and BHP Billiton over the exploitation rights for the Bakhuis region. Parties expect to have a new bauxite agreement signed by 2008, with the companies commencing activities in that region in either 2010 or 2011.

The severe shortage of affordable energy sources has hampered Suriname’s ability to expand its industries. This goes for the bauxite sector as well. Currently running on diesel-fueled generators, SURALCO has indicated that any expansion of operations to include mining and refining reserves from West Suriname will depend on Suriname expanding its energy-generating sources. To alleviate some of Suriname’s energy woes, the state-owned oil company, Staatsolie, built a 14 megawatt (MW) diesel-generated energy plant in 2006. In its most recently updated expansion plan, the company intends to expand the capacity of the plant to 18 MW.

The gold mining sector is largely informal, unregulated, and small scale, but constitutes an important part of the informal economy (estimated at as much as 100% of GDP), and must be brought into the realm of tax and environmental authorities. In the official sector the Gross Rosebel Goldmines, wholly owned by the Canadian firm IAMGOLD, commenced its operations in 2004 and immediately positioned itself as the most productive and low-cost of all mines owned by IAMGOLD. A new player in the Surinamese gold sector is the U.S. firm Newmont Mining Corporation. Working in a joint venture with SURALCO, the company has indicated that it will be seeking a production license from the Government of Suriname by 2008. Newmont wants to be operational by 2010. The reserves in the company’s concession area are estimated to be 300 million troy ounces.

Suriname has also attracted the attention of international companies interested in extensive development of a tropical hardwoods industry and possible diamond mining. However, proposals for exploitation of the country's tropical forests and undeveloped regions of the interior traditionally inhabited by indigenous and Maroon communities have raised the concerns of environmentalists and human rights activists in Suriname and abroad.

The sector with the most promising outlook for rapid, near future expansion is the oil sector. A 2000 study by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests that there may be up 15 billion barrels of oil in the Guyana Plateau. The state-owned oil company, Staatsolie, is by law the only company with the right to operate in Suriname’s oil sector. Other companies can only access the market through production sharing agreements with Staatsolie. With its current output at 14,000 barrels per day (bpd), Staatsolie announced a robust expansion plan titled “Vision 2020” that will seek to expand output to 18,000 bpd by 2012. Staatsolie also plans to expand its onshore exploration research in order to increase reserves by 30 million barrels per five years. In order to reach this goal, the company signed a production sharing agreement with the Australian company Hardman Resources. Staatsolie further intends to establish and develop near shore reserves. In its offshore activities the company signed a production sharing agreements with the Spanish Repsol YPF (2004), the Danish Maersk Oil (2004), and the American Occidental Petroleum Corporation (2005). A second U.S. firm, Murphy Corporation, is expected to sign a production sharing agreement with Staatsolie for offshore activities. Staatsolie expects 2008 to become the high point for Suriname’s offshore oil activities, with Repsol YPF drilling its first test well. In its “Vision 2020” Staatsolie also announced major expansion plans for its downstream market. The company wants to expand its refining capacity from 7,000 bpd to 15,000 bpd. Staatsolie also plans to put up its own retail business.

In an effort to address the problem of Suriname’s ailing 110 parastatals, the government has introduced a plan that would strengthen them, after which they would be privatized. The first parastatals chosen for this experiment were the banana company, Surland, the wood processing company, Bruynzeel, and the rice company, SML. After closing for more than seven months in 2002, the banana company was reopened under the new name SBBS. After an initial attempt to privatize the company failed in 2005, the government continued the restructuring of the company. With heavy financing from the European Union the company has been revitalized, but is not yet out of debt. In 2006 SBBS produced and exported at record quantities. The management of the company is currently in the hands of a French company. The government has not announced any new plans for privatizing the company. The privatization attempt of the wood processing company, Bruynzeel, has failed. After months of negotiations, a memorandum of understanding, a letter of intent, and opposition protests against the deal, the government and the Dutch company Doorwin failed to reach an agreement on the terms of sale. The government is currently considering its options with this company. A British investment firm, the Emerald Investment Group, has expressed an interest in the company and has made a tentative offer to the government for Bruynzeel. The government has not indicated what it plans to do with the company. The restructuring of the heavily indebted rice company SML has failed. The company has also continuously been involved in legal proceedings brought by one of its largest creditors. In May 2007 the government announced that it would go ahead with the sale of the company. A call for proposals was published in the daily newspapers. Indications are that the government might go ahead and accept any bid that would cover the company’s extensive debt.

==History==
Arawak and Carib tribes lived in the region before Columbus sighted the coast in 1498. Spain officially claimed the area in 1593, but Spanish and Portuguese explorers of the time gave the area little attention. Dutch settlement began in 1616 at the mouths of several rivers between present-day Georgetown, Guyana, and Cayenne, French Guiana.

Suriname became a Dutch colony in 1667. The new colony, Dutch Guiana, did not thrive. Historians cite several reasons for this, including Holland's preoccupation with its more extensive (and profitable) East Indian territories, violent conflict between whites and native tribes, and frequent uprisings by the imported slave population, which was often treated with extraordinary cruelty. Barely, if at all, assimilated into plantation society, many of the slaves fled to the interior, where they maintained a West African culture and established the five major Bush Negro tribes in existence today: the Djuka, Saramaccaner, Matuwari, Paramaccaner, and Quinti.

Plantations steadily declined in importance as labor costs rose. Rice, bananas, and citrus fruits replaced the traditional crops of sugar, coffee, and cocoa. Exports of gold rose beginning in 1900. The Dutch government gave little financial support to the colony. Suriname's economy was transformed in the years following World War I, when an American firm (ALCOA) began exploiting bauxite deposits in East Suriname. Bauxite processing and then alumina production began in 1916. During World War II, more than 75% of U.S. bauxite imports came from Suriname.

In 1951, Suriname began to acquire a growing measure of autonomy from the Netherlands. Suriname became an autonomous part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on December 15, 1954, and gained independence, with Dutch consent, on November 25, 1975.

Most of Suriname's political parties took shape during the autonomy period and were overwhelmingly based on ethnicity. For example, the National Party of Suriname found its support among the Creoles, the Progressive Reform Party members came from the Hindustani population, and the Indonesian Peasant's Party was Javanese. Other smaller parties found support by appealing to voters on an ideological or pro-independence platform; the Partij Nationalistische Republiek (PNR) was among the most important. Its members pressed most strongly for independence and for the introduction of leftist political and economic measures. Many former PNR members would go on to play a key role following the coup of February 1980.

Suriname was a parliamentary democracy in the years immediately following independence. Henk Arron became the first Prime Minister and was re-elected in 1977. On February 25, 1980, 16 noncommissioned officers overthrew the elected government, which many accused of inefficiency and mismanagement. The military-dominated government then suspended the constitution, dissolved the legislature, and formed a regime that ruled by decree. Although a civilian filled the post of president, a military man, Desi Bouterse, actually ruled the country.

Throughout 1982, pressure grew for a return to civilian rule. In early December 1982, military authorities cracked down, arresting and killing 15 prominent opposition leaders, including journalists, lawyers, and trade union leaders.

Following the murders, the United States and the Netherlands suspended economic and military cooperation with the Bouterse regime, which increasingly began to follow an erratic but often leftist-oriented political course. The regime restricted the press and limited the rights of its citizens. The economy declined rapidly after the suspension of economic aid from the Netherlands.

Continuing economic decline brought pressure for change. During the 1984-87 period, the Bouterse regime tried to end the crisis by appointing a succession of nominally civilian-led cabinets. Many figures in the government came from the traditional political parties that had been shoved aside during the coup. The military eventually agreed to free elections in 1987, a new constitution, and a civilian government.

Another pressure for change had erupted in July 1986, when a Maroon insurgency, led by former soldier Ronnie Brunswijk, began attacking economic targets in the country's interior. In response, the army ravaged villages and killed suspected Brunswijk supporters. Thousands of Maroons fled to nearby French Guiana. In an effort to end the bloodshed, the Surinamese Government negotiated a peace treaty, called the Kourou Accord, with Brunswijk in 1989. However, Bouterse and other military leaders blocked the accord's implementation.

On December 24, 1990, military officers forced the resignations of the civilian President and Vice President elected in 1987. Military-selected replacements were hastily approved by the National Assembly on December 29. Faced with mounting pressure from the U.S., other nations, the Organization of American States (OAS), and other international organizations, the government held new elections on May 25, 1991. The New Front (NF) Coalition, comprised of the Creole-based National Party of Suriname (NPS), the Hindustani-based Progressive Reform Party (VHP), the Javanese-based Indonesian Peasant's Party (KTPI), and the labor-oriented Surinamese Workers Party (SPA) were able to win a majority in the National Assembly. On September 6, 1991, NPS candidate Ronald Venetiaan was elected President, and the VHP's Jules Ajodhia became Vice President.

The Venetiaan government was able to effect a settlement to Suriname's domestic insurgency through the August 1992 Peace Accord with Bush Negro and Amerindian rebels. In April 1993, Desi Bouterse left his position as commander of the armed forces and was replaced by Arthy Gorre, a military officer committed to bringing the armed forces under civilian government control. Economic reforms instituted by the Venetiaan government eventually helped curb inflation, unify the official and unofficial exchange rates, and improve the government's economic situation by re-establishing relations with the Dutch, thereby opening the way for a major influx of Dutch financial assistance. Despite these successes, the governing coalition lost support and failed to retain control of the government in the subsequent round of national elections. The rival National Democratic Party (NDP), founded in the early 1990s by Desi Bouterse, benefited from the New Front government's loss of popularity. The NDP won more National Assembly seats (16 of 51) than any other party in the May 1996 national elections, and in September, 1996, joined with the KTPI, dissenters from the VHP, and several smaller parties to elect NDP vice chairman Jules Wijdenbosch president of an NDP-led coalition government. Divisions and subsequent reshufflings of coalition members in the fall of 1997 and early 1998 weakened the coalition's mandate and slowed legislative action.

In May 1999, after mass demonstrations protesting poor economic conditions, the government was forced to call early elections. The elections in May 2000 returned Ronald Venetiaan and his New Front coalition to the presidency. The NF based its campaign on a platform to fix the faltering Surinamese economy.

In the national election held on May 25, 2005, the ruling NF coalition suffered a significant setback due to widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and the public perception that the NF had produced few tangible gains. The NF won just 23 seats, falling short of a majority in the National Assembly, and immediately entered into negotiations with the Maroon-based "A" Combination and the A-1 Coalition to form a working majority. Desi Bouterse’s NDP more than doubled its representation in the National Assembly, winning 15 seats. Bouterse, the NDP’s declared presidential candidate, withdrew from the race days before the National Assembly convened to vote for the next president and tapped his running mate, Rabin Parmessar, to run as the NDP’s candidate. In the National Assembly, the NF challenged Parmessar’s Surinamese citizenship, displaying copies of a Dutch passport issued to Parmessar in 2004. Parmessar was eventually allowed to stand for election, and parliament later confirmed his Surinamese citizenship. After two votes, no candidate received the required two-thirds majority, pushing the final decision in August 2005 to a special session of the United People’s Assembly, where President Venetiaan was reelected with a significant majority of votes from the local, district, and national assembly members gathered. His running mate, Ramdien Sardjoe, was elected as vice president. While the Venetiaan administration has made progress in stabilizing the economy, tensions within the coalition have impeded progress and stymied legislative action.

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1893.htm]}}

{{Nb countries south america}}

Portugal

2007-10-30T12:16:25Z

Pachyderm: Portugal an ally in WW1 & 2.

{{Country
|name =''República Portuguesa''
|map =Portugal rel82.jpg
|flag =Flag of Portugal.png
|arms =Arms of Portugal.png
|capital =Lisbon
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Portuguese
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Aníbal Cavaco Silva
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =José Sócrates
|pm-raw =
|area =35,580 sq mi
|pop =10,848,692(2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$229.881 billion(2006)
|gdp-pc =$23,464 (2006)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Portugal''' is a [[European]] nation in the [[Iberian Peninsula]], with land borders with [[Spain]]. Its capital is [[Lisbon]].

==Government and Political Conditions==
Portugal moved from authoritarian rule to parliamentary democracy following the 1974 military coup against dictator Marcello Caetano, himself a continuation of the long-running dictatorship of Antonio Salazar. After a period of instability and communist agitation, Portugal ratified a new Constitution in 1976. Subsequent revisions of the Constitution placed the military under strict civilian control; trimmed the powers of the president; and laid the groundwork for a stable, pluralistic liberal democracy, as well as privatization of nationalized firms and the government-owned communications media. Portugal joined the European Union in 1986, and has moved toward greater political and economic integration with Europe ever since.

The four main branches of the national government are the presidency, the prime minister and Council of Ministers (the government), the Assembly of the Republic (the parliament), and the judiciary. The president, elected to a five-year term by direct, universal suffrage, also is commander in chief of the armed forces. Presidential powers include confirming the prime minister and Council of Ministers; dismissing the prime minister; dissolving the assembly to call early elections; vetoing legislation, which may be overridden by the assembly; and declaring a state of war or siege. The Council of State, a presidential advisory body, is composed of six senior civilian officers, former presidents elected under the 1976 constitution, five members chosen by the assembly, and five selected by the president.

The government is headed by the prime minister, who is nominated by the assembly for confirmation by the president. The prime minister then names the Council of Ministers. A new government is required to present its governing platform to the assembly for approval.

The Assembly of the Republic is a unicameral body composed of up to 230 deputies. Elected by universal suffrage according to a system of proportional representation, deputies serve terms of office of four years, unless the president dissolves the assembly and calls for new elections. The national Supreme Court is the court of last appeal. Military, administrative, and fiscal courts are designated as separate court categories. A nine-member Constitutional Tribunal reviews the constitutionality of legislation.

The Azores and Madeira Islands have constitutionally mandated autonomous status. A regional autonomy statute promulgated in 1980 established the Government of the Autonomous Region of the Azores; the Government of the Autonomous Region of Madeira operates under a provisional autonomy statute in effect since 1976. Continental Portugal is divided into 18 districts, each headed by a governor appointed by the Minister of Internal Administration. Macau, a former dependency, reverted to Chinese sovereignty in December 1999.

===Current Administration===
Parliamentary elections on February 20, 2005, gave the Socialist Party a comfortable majority for the new Prime Minister, Jose Socrates. Socrates’ government formally assumed power March 12, 2005.

The Socialist Party’s 2005 victory followed a period of transition after center-right (PSD) Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durão Barroso resigned to accept the nomination as President of the European Commission. Durão Barroso, elected in 2002, committed his government to public-sector austerity and business incentives to promote growth, trade, and productivity. It faced rising unemployment, meeting euro-zone fiscal requirements, and adapting to European Union and NATO enlargement. After Durão Barroso’s resignation, President Jorge Sampaio asked the former mayor of Lisbon, Pedro Santana Lopes, to form a new government. Sampaio lost confidence in that government by the end of 2004, dissolved parliament, and called for new parliamentary elections.

Social Democrat Anibal Cavaco Silva, a center-right candidate and former Prime Minister, won the Portuguese presidential election on January 22, 2006 with 50.6% of the vote. He was sworn in on March 9, 2006, replacing outgoing Socialist President Sampaio.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President of the Portuguese Republic--Anibal Cavaco Silva
*Prime Minister--Jose Socrates
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Luis Amado
*Minister of Defense--Nuno Severiano Teixeira
*Minister of State for Internal Administration--Rui Pereira
*Minister of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers--Pedro Silva Pereira
*Minister of State and Justice--Alberto Costa
*Minister of Finance--Fernando Teixeira dos Santos
*Minister of Economy and Innovation--Manuel Pinho
*Minister of Parliamentary Affairs--Augusto Santos Silva
*Minister of the Environment--Francisco Nunes
*Minister of Culture--Isabel Pires de Lima
*Minister of Agriculture--Jaime Silva
*Minister of Public Works--Mario Lino
*Minister of Labor and Social Security--Jose Vieira da Silva
*Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education--Jose Mariano Gago
*Minister of Education--Maria de Lurdes Rodrigues

===Foreign Relations===
Portugal has been a significant beneficiary of the European Union and is a proponent of European integration. Portugal will hold the presidency of the EU Council for the third time during the latter half of 2007. During its upcoming presidency, Portugal hopes to focus on EU relations with North Africa and the Middle East, hold a second EU-Africa summit, revitalize the Lisbon Agenda, and develop a common EU approach toward migration flows.

Portugal was a founding member of NATO; it is an active member of the alliance by, for example, contributing proportionally large contingents in Balkans peacekeeping forces. Portugal proposed the creation of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) to improve its ties with other Portuguese-speaking countries. Additionally, Portugal has participated in a series of Ibero-American summits. Portugal was a strong advocate of independence for East Timor, a former Portuguese colony, and has committed troops and money to East Timor, in close cooperation with the United States, Asian allies, and the United Nations. Portugal contributed a small gendarme force to Iraq that it withdrew in February 2005, and has contributed funds and personnel for other training and development projects for Iraq reconstruction, including the NATO Training Mission.

==Economy==
Portugal's membership in the European Union (EU) contributed to stable economic growth, largely through increased trade and an inflow of EU funds for infrastructure improvements. Until 2001, average annual growth rates consistently exceeded those of the EU average. Due to slow economic growth, Portugal has lost ground relative to the rest of the EU since 2002. Portugal's per capita GDP dropped from 80% of the EU-25 average in 2001 to 71% in 2006, causing the country to drop three places to 18th in purchasing power parity, behind Greece, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia.

In order to enter the European Monetary Union (EMU) in January 1999, Portugal agreed to cut its fiscal deficit and undertake structural reforms. The EMU brought exchange rate stability, lower inflation, and lower interest rates. Falling interest rates, in turn, lowered the cost of public debt and helped the country achieve its fiscal targets. However, private sector borrowing increased dramatically. By 2001, the economy was in serious external imbalance, with a large current and capital account deficit. Portugal was the first country to breach the Eurozone's Stability and Growth Pact budget deficit target of 3%. The Government of Portugal met the 3% target from 2002-2004, but the deficit surged to an all-time high of 6% in 2005. The government reduced the deficit to 4.6% in 2006 mainly through revenue generating measures. The 2007 budget aims to reduce the deficit to 3.7% through spending cuts and structural reforms.

Helped in part by a wider EU recovery, the Portuguese economy grew by 1.4% in 2006, up from a 0.3% the year before. The Portuguese Government predicts the growth rate will accelerate to 1.8% in 2007. Unemployment was 7.6% in 2006.

Portugal's economy is based on traditional industries such as textiles, clothing, footwear, cork and wood products, beverages (wine), porcelain and earthenware, and glass and glassware. In addition, the country has increased its role in Europe's automotive sector and has a world-class mold-making industry. Services, particularly tourism, are playing an increasingly important role. Portugal’s EU funding will be cut by 10%, to 22.5 billion euros, during the 2007-2013 period. EU expansion into eastern Europe has erased Portugal's historic competitive advantage and relative low labor costs. The government is working to change Portugal's economic development model from one based on public consumption and public investment to one focused on exports, private investment, and development of the high-tech sector.

==History==
Portugal is one of the oldest states in Europe. It traces its modern history to A.D. 1140 when, following a 9-year rebellion against the King of Leon-Castile, Afonso Henriques, the Count of Portugal, became the country's first king, Afonso I. Afonso and his successors expanded their territory southward, capturing Lisbon from the Moors in 1147. The approximate present-day boundaries were secured in 1249 by Afonso III.

By 1337, Portuguese explorers had reached the Canary Islands. Inspired by Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460), explorers such as Vasco da Gama, Bartolomeu Dias, and Pedro Alvares Cabral made explorations from Brazil to India and Japan. Portugal eventually became a massive colonial empire with vast territories in Africa and Latin America (Brazil) and outposts in the Far East (East Timor, Macau, Goa).

Dynastic disputes led in 1580 to the succession of Philip II of Spain to the Portuguese throne. A revolt ended Spanish hegemony in 1640, and the House of Braganca was established as Portugal's ruling family, lasting until the establishment of the Portuguese Republic in 1910.

Portugal was allied with the Entente Powers during the [[First World War]] and its troops fought on the Western Front.

During the next 16 years, intense political rivalries and economic instability undermined newly established democratic institutions. Responding to pressing economic problems, a military government, which had taken power in 1926, named a prominent university economist, Dr. Antonio Salazar, as finance minister in 1928 and prime minister in 1932. For the next 42 years, Salazar and his successor, Marcelo Caetano, appointed prime minister in 1968, ruled Portugal as an authoritarian "corporate" state. Unlike most other European countries, Portugal did not play a combatant role in World War II, although it was friendly towards the Allied cause and allowed anti-submarine patrols to fly from bases in the Azores. It was a charter member of NATO, joining in 1949.

In the early 1960s, wars with independence movements in Portugal's African territories began to drain labor and wealth from Portugal. Professional dissatisfaction within the military, coupled with a growing sense of the futility of the African conflicts, led to the formation of the clandestine "Armed Forces Movement" in 1973.

The downfall of the Portuguese corporate state came on April 25, 1974, when the Armed Forces Movement seized power in a nearly bloodless coup and established a provisional military government.

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3208.htm]}}

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

School

2007-10-29T17:07:29Z

Pachyderm: /* Alternatives */

A '''school''' is an educational institution. Schools can be either publicly- or privately-owned, funded by public or private sources or a combination of both, and may have a secular or a religious mandate. In the [[United States]], 89% of children attend public schools, which are taxpayer-funded [[atheistic]] schools that censor classroom [[prayer]].

The increasingly popular alternative to school is [[homeschooling]].<ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/ 1.1 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2003], Nation Institute for Education Statistics</ref>

== Types of schools ==

Terms used to describe schools vary from place to place. Some of the following descriptions overlap with each other.

=== State school ===

A '''state school''' is one that is owned and funded by the state.

In the United States, government-controlled schools are supported by taxpayers, often in the form of a school tax on property. Prior to the 20th century, school attendance was only part-time, consuming only about half or less of the year.

In some states of [[Australia]], although the curriculum is secular, religious education by volunteers associated with the Council for Christian Education is permitted. This takes place in class time, but parents can choose that their children not attend this class.

In [[Norway]] there are virtually no schools other than government schools.<ref>[http://www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/15/1.htm Case Studies On Health Promotion Initiatives From The Nordic Countries]</ref>

=== Private school ===

A '''private school''' is one that is owned by some body other than the state. Private schools are generally funded by fees levied on the parents of the students, which usually means that the parents are paying twice, once in direct fees, and once in taxes for state schools.

In Australia, the Federal government provides some funding to private schools, although the parents of the students provide most of the income of the school.

Some private schools aspire to very high standards, some specialize in certain modes and topics of instruction (such as a military school), and yet others provide a place for children who need curricula not available in the state systems.

=== Public school ===

In America, a '''public school''' is a ''state school''. In some Commonwealth countries, a '''public school''' is a church-run (i.e. run by a church denomination) school that is open to the general public. In the [[United Kingdom]] a public school is a private school (as opposed to a 'state school', funded by the government through Local Education Authorities and free of charge to pupils) whose head teacher is a member of the Headmasters' Conference.

In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the [[Ten Commandments]].

Compulsory 5-days a week, nearly 8-hours a day attendance at public school only began nationwide in the [[United States]] during the 20th century. Compulsory schooling laws were not universal throughout the [[United States]] until 1917, and even then the school year was often less than a half year.<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref> There have been few, if any, long-term studies on the effects of the modern approach of full-time attendance at school from age 6 and younger to age 21 and older.

=== Faith school ===

A '''faith school''' in the [[United Kingdom]] is partially controlled by religious groups and have a predominance of pupils from that religious group. The government funds or partially funds faith schools.

=== Parent-controlled schools ===

'''Parent-controlled schools''' (in Australia) are private schools usually owned by churches, but with control being in the hands of a parent-appointed board.

=== Church schools ===

'''Church schools''' (in Australia) are the older denominationally-owned and run public schools which generally provide a secular education.

=== Christian schools, Muslim schools, etc. ===

What are known as ''Faith schools'' in the United Kingdom are known as '''Christian schools''', '''Catholic schools''', or similar in Australia.

== Alternatives ==

For most parents, [[homeschooling]] is the primary alternative education to schools. Increasing numbers of parents choose homeschooling due to a declining quality and culture in traditional schools and the perceived hostility of established schools to religion and morality.<ref>Mankins, Dave, [http://park.org/Guests/Educate/HTALK/faq.htm Home Education Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)]</ref>

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

==See also==
*[[Homeschooling]]

[[Category:Education]]

School

2007-10-29T17:06:24Z

Pachyderm: /* Public school */ UK definition

A '''school''' is an educational institution. Schools can be either publicly- or privately-owned, funded by public or private sources or a combination of both, and may have a secular or a religious mandate. In the [[United States]], 89% of children attend public schools, which are taxpayer-funded [[atheistic]] schools that censor classroom [[prayer]].

The increasingly popular alternative to school is [[homeschooling]].<ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/ 1.1 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2003], Nation Institute for Education Statistics</ref>

== Types of schools ==

Terms used to describe schools vary from place to place. Some of the following descriptions overlap with each other.

=== State school ===

A '''state school''' is one that is owned and funded by the state.

In the United States, government-controlled schools are supported by taxpayers, often in the form of a school tax on property. Prior to the 20th century, school attendance was only part-time, consuming only about half or less of the year.

In some states of [[Australia]], although the curriculum is secular, religious education by volunteers associated with the Council for Christian Education is permitted. This takes place in class time, but parents can choose that their children not attend this class.

In [[Norway]] there are virtually no schools other than government schools.<ref>[http://www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/15/1.htm Case Studies On Health Promotion Initiatives From The Nordic Countries]</ref>

=== Private school ===

A '''private school''' is one that is owned by some body other than the state. Private schools are generally funded by fees levied on the parents of the students, which usually means that the parents are paying twice, once in direct fees, and once in taxes for state schools.

In Australia, the Federal government provides some funding to private schools, although the parents of the students provide most of the income of the school.

Some private schools aspire to very high standards, some specialize in certain modes and topics of instruction (such as a military school), and yet others provide a place for children who need curricula not available in the state systems.

=== Public school ===

In America, a '''public school''' is a ''state school''. In some Commonwealth countries, a '''public school''' is a church-run (i.e. run by a church denomination) school that is open to the general public. In the [[United Kingdom]] a public school is a private school (as opposed to a 'state school', funded by the government through Local Education Authorities and free of charge to pupils) whose head teacher is a member of the Headmasters' Conference.

In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the [[Ten Commandments]].

Compulsory 5-days a week, nearly 8-hours a day attendance at public school only began nationwide in the [[United States]] during the 20th century. Compulsory schooling laws were not universal throughout the [[United States]] until 1917, and even then the school year was often less than a half year.<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref> There have been few, if any, long-term studies on the effects of the modern approach of full-time attendance at school from age 6 and younger to age 21 and older.

=== Faith school ===

A '''faith school''' in the [[United Kingdom]] is partially controlled by religious groups and have a predominance of pupils from that religious group. The government funds or partially funds faith schools.

=== Parent-controlled schools ===

'''Parent-controlled schools''' (in Australia) are private schools usually owned by churches, but with control being in the hands of a parent-appointed board.

=== Church schools ===

'''Church schools''' (in Australia) are the older denominationally-owned and run public schools which generally provide a secular education.

=== Christian schools, Muslim schools, etc. ===

What are known as ''Faith schools'' in the United Kingdom are known as '''Christian schools''', '''Catholic schools''', or similar in Australia.

== Alternatives ==

For most parents, [[homeschooling]] is the primary alternative education to schools. Increasing numbers of parents choose homeschooling due to a declining quality and culture in traditional schools and their hostility to religion and morality.<ref>Mankins, Dave, [http://park.org/Guests/Educate/HTALK/faq.htm Home Education Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)]</ref>

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

==See also==
*[[Homeschooling]]

[[Category:Education]]

Celts

2007-10-29T12:52:43Z

Pachyderm:

The '''Celts''' are people who speak the Celtic languages, primarily of [[Ireland]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], [[Cornwall]], [[Brittany]] and the [[Isle of Man]]. Other nations and regions with Celtic heritage, music and customs include [[Galicia]] in Northern [[Spain]], and [[England]]. The English share a similar mixed heritage of Celtic, [[Scandinavian]], and [[Germanic]] origin as the Scots. However, unlike Scotland, where the [[Gaelic]] Language was introduced from Ireland, no extant Celtic languages are spoken in England or Galicia.

The Celts were the first ethnic group to become widespread in Europe. Using tribes rather than stable civilizations, the Celts began in central Europe and migrated west beginning in about 500 B.C. to the British Isles and also northwest France and portions of Spain. Their religion consisted of worshipping the land, the waters and the changing of the seasons. Many aspects of life were associated with a particular God or Goddess, and their priests were called “druids”. They had no written language but often told myths and folktales.

==Pronunciation==

The name "Celt" and the adjective "Celtic" can be pronounced with either a hard or a soft ''c.'' According to dictionaries the hard-c version ("kelt") is more common, and perhaps more correct since it is derived from the Greek word ''keltoi.''

The Boston Celtics basketball team is named after the Celts, a loose reference to Boston's Irish association; the team name is always pronounced with a soft ''c,'' as if it were spelled "seltics"; the same applies the the [[Glasgow]] football team Celtic F.C.
[[Category:culture]][[category:European History]]

Talk:Celts

2007-10-29T12:52:00Z

Pachyderm: New page: ''no extant Celtic languages are spoken in England or Galicia.'' Well, Cornish is, sort of, and Cornwall is part of England... sort of... ~~~~

''no extant Celtic languages are spoken in England or Galicia.''

Well, Cornish is, sort of, and Cornwall is part of England... sort of... [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Celts

2007-10-29T12:50:48Z

Pachyderm: /* Pronunciation */

The '''Celts''' are people who speak the Celtic languages, primarily of [[Ireland]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], [[Cornwall]], [[Brittany]] and the [[Isle of Man]]. Other nations and regions with Celtic heritage, music and customs include [[Galicia]] in Northern [[Spain]], and [[England]]. The English share a similar mixed heritage of Celtic, [[Scandanavian]], and [[Germanic]] origin as the Scots. However, unlike Scotland, where the [[Gaelic]] Language was introduced from Ireland, no extant Celtic languages are spoken in England or Galicia.

The Celts were the first ethnic group to become widespread in Europe. Using tribes rather than stable civilizations, the Celts began in central Europe and migrated west beginning in about 500 B.C. to the British Isles and also northwest France and portions of Spain. Their religion consisted of worshipping the land, the waters and the changing of the seasons. Many aspects of life were associated with a particular God or Goddess, and their priests were called “druids”. They had no written language but often told myths and folktales.

==Pronunciation==

The name "Celt" and the adjective "Celtic" can be pronounced with either a hard or a soft ''c.'' According to dictionaries the hard-c version ("kelt") is more common, and perhaps more correct since it is derived from the Greek word ''keltoi.''

The Boston Celtics basketball team is named after the Celts, a loose reference to Boston's Irish association; the team name is always pronounced with a soft ''c,'' as if it were spelled "seltics"; the same applies the the [[Glasgow]] football team Celtic F.C.
[[Category:culture]][[category:European History]]

Xinjiang

2007-10-29T12:48:28Z

Pachyderm: New page: '''Xinjiang''' (Wade-Giles: Sinkiang) is a large region of north-western China, bordering Mongolia, Russia (Siberia), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, [[...

'''Xinjiang''' ([[Wade-Giles]]: Sinkiang) is a large region of north-western [[China]], bordering [[Mongolia]], [[Russia]] ([[Siberia]]), [[Kazakhstan]], [[Kyrgyzstan]], [[Tajikistan]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]] ([[Azad Kashmir]]) and [[India]] ([[Kashmir]]) as well as the Chinese provinces/regions of [[Gansu]], [[Qinghai]] and Xizang ([[Tibet]]). Its formal name is the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and it is the largest administrative district in China, with an area in excess of 1.6m sq km. The capital city is Urumqi.

The area came under the rule of the Chinese Empire in the eighteenth century and the name Xinjiang ('New Frontier') was first ussed in 1768. Xinjiang was constituted a province of the empire in 1884, following the repression of a Moslem uprising in the 1870s. Xinjiang has a non-Han Chinese majority; the main group, Uyghur, being a Turkic people (an obsolete alternative name for Xinjiang was 'Chinese Turkestan'). There has been significant immigration of Han Chinese since the area was occupied by communist forces in 1949..

[[Category:China]]

Sinkiang

2007-10-29T12:45:58Z

Pachyderm: New page: '''Sinkiang''' (Pinyin: Xinjiang) is a large region of north-western China, bordering Mongolia, Russia (Siberia), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, [[...

'''Sinkiang''' ([[Pinyin]]: [[Xinjiang]]) is a large region of north-western [[China]], bordering [[Mongolia]], [[Russia]] ([[Siberia]]), [[Kazakhstan]], [[Kyrgyzstan]], [[Tajikistan]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Pakistan]] ([[Azad Kashmir]]) and [[India]] ([[Kashmir]]) as well as the Chinese provinces/regions of [[Gansu]], [[Qinghai]] and Xizand ([[Tibet]]). Its formal name is the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and it is the largest administrative district in China, with an area in excess of 1.6m sq km. The capital city is Urumqi.

The area came under the rule of the Chinese Empire in the eighteenth century and the name Xinjiang ('New Frontier') was first ussed in 1768. Xinjiang was constituted a province of the empire in 1884, following the repression of a Moslem uprising in the 1870s. Xinjiang has a non-Han Chinese majority; the main group, Uyghur, being a Turkic people (an obsolete alternative name ofor Xinjiang was 'Chinese Turkestan'). There has been significant immigration of Han Chinese since the area was occupied by communist forces in 1949..

[[Category:China]]

Talk:English and British Queen mothers

2007-10-28T22:22:10Z

Pachyderm: New page: Don't wish to trespass on this without your say-so, but it may be worth pointing out that only the last of the 3 20th century QMs was popularly known as 'the QM' to avoid confusion with he...

Don't wish to trespass on this without your say-so, but it may be worth pointing out that only the last of the 3 20th century QMs was popularly known as 'the QM' to avoid confusion with her daughter; the others being simply known as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary (though presumably as QAtQM and QMtQM more formally). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 18:22, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Ghana

2007-10-28T16:08:50Z

Pachyderm:

'''Ghana''' is a nation of west [[Africa]]. It has a southern [[Atlantic Ocean]] coastline, and is bounded to the west by [[Cote d'Ivoire]] ([[Ivory Coast]]), to the north by [[Burkina Faso]] and to the east by [[Togo]]. Its capital city is [[Accra]]. Ghana has a land area of 92,100 square miles (238,537 sq km) and a population of 23 millions.

Ghana was formerly a British colony and was known as Gold Coast. It was the first British territory in sub-saharan Africa to gain independence (excepting South Africa), in 1957.

[[Category:African Countries]]

Ghana

2007-10-28T16:08:25Z

Pachyderm:

'''Ghana''' is a nation of west [[Africa]]. It has a southern [[Atlantic Ocean]] coastline, and is bounded to the west by [[Cote dIvoire]] ([[Ivory Coast]]), to the north by [[Burkina Faso]] and to the east by [[Togo]]. Its capital city is [[Accra]]. Ghana has a land area of 92,100 square miles (238,537 sq km) and a population of 23 millions.

Ghana was formerly a British colony and was known as Gold Coast. It was the first British territory in sub-saharan Africa to gain independence (excepting South Africa), in 1957.

[[Category:African Countries]]

Ghana

2007-10-28T16:07:03Z

Pachyderm:

'''Ghana''' is a nation of west [[Africa]]. It has a southern [[Atlantic Ocean]] coastline, and is bounded to the west by [[Ivory Coast]], to the north by [[Burkina Faso]] and to the east by [[Togo]]. Its capital city is [[Accra]]. Ghana has a land area of 92,100 square miles (238,537 sq km) and a population of 23 millions.

Ghana was formerly a British colony and was known as Gold Coast. It was the first British territory in sub-saharan Africa to gain independence (excepting South Africa), in 1957.

[[Category:African Countries]]

Ghana

2007-10-28T16:06:36Z

Pachyderm: New page: '''Ghana''' is a nation of west Africa. It has a southern Atlantic Ocean}} coastline, and is bounded to the west by [[Ivory Coast, to the north by Burkina Faso and to the east ...

'''Ghana''' is a nation of west [[Africa]]. It has a southern [[Atlantic Ocean}} coastline, and is bounded to the west by [[Ivory Coast]], to the north by [[Burkina Faso]] and to the east by [[Togo]]. Its capital city is [[Accra]]. Ghana has a land area of 92,100 square miles (238,537 sq km) and a population of 23 millions.

Ghana was formerly a British colony and was known as Gold Coast. It was the first British territory in sub-saharan Africa to gain independence (excepting South Africa), in 1957.

[[Category:African Countries]]

Talk:Eton College

2007-10-23T12:39:45Z

Pachyderm:

It would be great if this article was updated to state that this institution is most certainly not an institution for the poor. It costs in excess of £26,000 per year - At the moment equating to around $53,000 per school year - This is not reflected in your article and really should be.

It might also be welcome to note the high % of British MP's who have attended this school and Harrow - A Fact that is causing democratic issues within the British system - To name a few Ex Etonian's :

Bill Wiggin
Boris Johnson
Nick Hurd
Henry Bellingham
Andrew Hargreaves
James Arbuthnot
Richard Fletcher-Vane, 2nd Baron Inglewood
David Tredinnick
Tom Sackville
David Rendel
David Cameron

Done. And it's not a university, too. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:39, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Eton College

2007-10-23T12:38:53Z

Pachyderm:

'''Eton College''', located in Eton, [[Berkshire]], [[England]], is one of Britain's most prestigious public (US = private) schools. It was founded in 1440 by King Henry VI as a charity school to provide free education for poor boys but ironically is now one of the most expensive schools in the country, charging around £26,000 (approx. US$53,000) per year for board and tuition.

== Famous Old Etonians ==
*[[Prince William of Wales]]
*[[Prince Henry of Wales]]
*[[David Cameron]], leader of the [[Conservative Party]]

[[category:United Kingdom]]

Bermuda

2007-09-17T15:53:28Z

Pachyderm: New page: '''Bermuda''' is an archipelago of 100 islands and islets (of which 20 are inhabited) in the North Atlantic Ocean 570 miles east of Cape Hatteras in the United States. Berm...

'''Bermuda''' is an [[archipelago]] of 100 islands and islets (of which 20 are inhabited) in the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] 570 miles east of [[Cape Hatteras]] in the [[United States]]. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory of the [[United Kingdom]] with an area of 20 square miles (53 sq km) and a population of 64,000. The capital is Hamilton.

The territory was colonised in 1609 by Sir George Somers who was shipwrecked there en route for [[Virginia]]. It was named after a Spanish seafarer Juan Bermudez, swho sighted it (but did not land) in the early sixteenth century.

The territory acquired internal self government in 1968; a referendum of 1995 rejected independence.

[[Category:Islands]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Talk:Reynard

2007-09-11T20:43:08Z

Pachyderm: New page: Dan, are you suggesting that a fox can be a Liberal? ;-) ~~~~

Dan, are you suggesting that a fox can be a [[Liberal]]? ;-) [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 16:43, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Tripoli

2007-09-11T15:59:55Z

Pachyderm:

'''Tripoli''' is the name of a number of cities and towns:

*[[Tripoli, Libya]]
*[[Tripoli, Lebanon]]
*[[Tripoli, Greece]]

[[Category:Disambiguation Page]]

Tripoli

2007-09-11T15:59:19Z

Pachyderm: New page: '''Tripoli''' is the name of a number of cities and towns: *Tripoli, Libya *Tripoli, Lebanon *Tripoli, Greece Category:Disambiguation page

'''Tripoli''' is the name of a number of cities and towns:

*[[Tripoli, Libya]]
*[[Tripoli, Lebanon]]
*[[Tripoli, Greece]]

[[Category:Disambiguation page]]

Talk:Essay:Rebuttal to LA Times Abortion Article

2007-09-11T15:53:29Z

Pachyderm: New page: Has this been sent as a letter to the LA Times? they might use it. ~~~~

Has this been sent as a letter to the LA Times? they might use it. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:53, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Cordell Hull

2007-09-11T15:49:57Z

Pachyderm: A start

'''Cordell Hull''' (1871-1955), a native of Tennessee, served as US [[Secretary of State]] between 1933 and 1944 - longer than any other occupant of that office. In 1945 he was awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]] for his efforts in bringing about the establishment of the [[United Nations]].

== Links ==
http://www.cordellhullmuseum.com/

[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:Communism

2007-09-11T15:25:18Z

Pachyderm: /* So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist */

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba.

{{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2007-09-11T13:22:21Z

Pachyderm: /* So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist */

Talk:Communism

2007-09-10T18:49:29Z

Pachyderm: /* So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist */

Bloody Friday

2007-09-10T15:37:56Z

Pachyderm: Another example of terrorist butchery by Schlafly's favourite 'freedom fighters'

'''Bloody Friday''' is the name given in [[Ireland]] to the events of Friday 21 July 1972 when the [[IRA]] set off 22 bombs in [[Belfast]] city centre in a period of just over one hour, killing nine people (of whom seven were civilians) and seriously injuring 130.

== Links ==
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/events/bloody_friday.stm
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bfriday/events.htm

[[Category:Terrorism]]

Talk:La Mon Hotel Bombing

2007-09-10T13:46:50Z

Pachyderm: New page: Read the article, Schlafly; read the linked report. This is the kind of thing you are trying to justify. Sickening. ~~~~

Read the article, Schlafly; read the linked report. This is the kind of thing you are trying to justify. Sickening. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:46, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

La Mon Hotel Bombing

2007-09-10T13:45:56Z

Pachyderm: New page: The La Mon House Hotel, near Belfast, was firebombed by the Provisional IRAon 17 February 1978, as part of the IRA campaign of terrorist murder to force Northern Ireland into a uni...

The La Mon House Hotel, near Belfast, was firebombed by the Provisional [[IRA]]on 17 February 1978, as part of the IRA campaign of terrorist murder to force [[Northern Ireland]] into a united [[Ireland]] against the wishes of the majority of its population. Twelve civilans were killed - some burned beyond recognition - and scores were badly wounded when the IRA detonated a massive firebomb at the hotel, attacking events hosted by the Irish Collie Club and the Northern Ireland Junior Motorcycle Club.

== Links ==
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2768463.stm

[[Category:Terrorism]]

Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen

2007-09-10T13:26:19Z

Pachyderm:

It is not 'English Protestants' who rule Northern Ireland, but Northern Irish Protestants who identify themselves as British - and they rule, now, in coalition with Irish nationalists. Some of the articles here on Ireland and Northern Ireland will give you more insight into the question. And your reluctance to use the term terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland is questionable. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 08:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Pachyderm's comments are all correct. In addition the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street happened on 7 February 1991 - several months after Mrs Thatcher left office[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/69117.stm]
. John Major (and the rest of the cabinet) were the targets. I think you may be confusing this attack with another one seven years prior to this where the IRA left a bomb in a Brighton hotel where Mrs Thatcher was staying during the Conservative Party conference.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/68779.stm] [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 08:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no bit of Ireland that is more Northerly than the most Northern parts of England, thus Ireland is not 'slightly to the North-West of England'.
The IRA attack on 10 Downing Street was made from an abandoned van not with 'hand-held weapons'. [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

It is purposeless getting into an edit war, but the section on Northern Ireland stinks. It presents a completely one-sided and inaccurate view of the situation to the extent of serving as a justification for terrorism. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

World History Lecture Fourteen

2007-09-10T13:00:19Z

Pachyderm: Edited to remove justifications for terrorism.

[[World]] [[History]] – The World Today
 Fourteenth Lecture
 Instructor, Andy Schlafly

 Outline of Lecture:
 I. Introduction
 II. World Economy and Technology
 A. Trade
 B. Energy
 C. Technology
 D. Agriculture
 E. Outer Space
 III. Security
 A. Northern Ireland
 B. Terrorism
 C. Migration
 D. Human Rights
 IV. Education

'''I. Introduction'''

Our journey through world history reaches the present in this final lecture.
'''
II. World Trade'''

One word sums up most historians’ view of the world today: “globalism”. That was not even a word 20 years ago. “Globalism” means treating the world as one political unit, as one massive village. Distances appear to be shortening between people, cultures and nations. Travel is more affordable for more people. Mobility is greater. Trade among nations is larger. Television and the internet link the world’s population of 6 or so billion people like never before.

One [[invention]] in late 1947 made most of this possible. Three scientists invented the [[transistor]] at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey (exit 44 on I-78, near Berkeley Heights). This tiny invention brought about a massive revolution in [[computer]]s and communications. With improvements, the transistor permitted microelectronic control and amplification of signals. This greatly advanced communication, as in radio, television, telephone and later the internet. This also permitted the storage of massive amounts of information, as in computers. Bell Labs, then part of AT&T, made this invention available to the entire world. Soon transistors replaced vacuum tubes in radios and televisions, enabling them to work better. The Japanese flooded the market with improved products.

[[Apple Computer]] sold a personal computer for home use in the late 1970s and, in 1981, [[IBM]] introduced its own personal computer. Time magazine declared the personal (or home) computer to be “Man of the Year” for 1982. Fifteen years later the internet became popular for connecting computers. In 2000, presidential candidate Al Gore attempted to take credit for helping create the internet, and the world ridiculed him. No politician, and certainly not Al Gore, can take credit for all this.

Other inventions also helped improve the world. The invention of plastics enabled the mass production of inexpensive goods, everything from drinking cups to watches to car and airplane furnishings. Robotics lowered the cost of manufacturing for everything. In the [[United States of America|United States]] unions resisted some of these changes. The Japanese companies, benefiting from cheaper labor and lack of unions, surpassed American companies in many industries. Economic problems later caught up with [[Japan]] in the early 1990s, but even today its car industry (especially Toyota) does better than Detroit car manufacturers. Voluntary import quotas have kept Japanese car imports lower than they would be without any trade barriers, and the Japanese began expensive selling luxury cars (such as the Lexus) as a way of making more money with fewer products.

In addition to Japan, other [[Asia]]n nations also thrived after World War II. The “Four Tigers” are the prosperous Pacific Rim nations of [[South Korea]], [[Taiwan]], [[Singapore]] and [[Hong Kong]]. (Hong Kong is now part of communist China but is allowed to remain free until at least the middle of the 21st century.) Even communist China has grown stronger economically by trading with the United States. Malaysia and other Asian nations have prospered too.

The world today has numerous “multinational” companies having offices in many different countries. Many American companies now have offices or factories even in communist China now. These multinational companies are attracted by the low wages and inexpensive raw materials, and by the opportunity to sell their products there. Increased regulation and taxes in America also encourage companies to transfer to an offshore labor force.

'''A. Trade'''

Beginning soon after the end of World War II, the western nations discussed agreements to reduce tariffs for trade among themselves. In 1947, they entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in order to decrease tariffs that interfered with trade. This marked a significant change from how nations had used tariffs in the past to protect their domestic industries and raise revenue. Under GATT, western countries first froze the tariffs (preventing them from increasing) and later began reducing the tariffs. In 1995, this approach was taken one step further with the World Trade Organization (WTO), which included non-western countries and also established international courts for deciding trade disputes among nations. There are 150 members of the WTO today, and Vietnam joined it last week (Jan. 11, 2007).

Western European nations also joined the European Common Market after World War II, and then in 1958 joined the European Economic Community (EEC) to reduce tariffs among themselves. The EEC later because the European Union (EU), which includes all Western European countries except Switzerland, which has never joined anything and fiercely defends its independence, and Norway. In 2002, all of EU began using a common currency known as the “euro”, except for Denmark and the United Kingdom, which still use their own currencies. In 2004, many Eastern European nations also joined the EU. A map of the EU is attached.

The large Muslim nation of Turkey has requested to join the EU. One opponent is the new Pope Benedict XVI of the Catholic Church, who succeeded Pope John Paul II in 2005 upon his death. Pope Benedict has emphasized the need to keep Europe Christian, and he sparked Muslim riots in late 2006 when he repeated a provocative quote about Islam.

North America has also created a free trade zone (free from tariffs) with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was never ratified by the Senate as a treaty but which Congress passed into law anyway. NAFTA establishes international courts that have already been used to force the United States to open its borders to Mexican trucks, which are less safe than American ones. The importation of drugs into the United States from Mexico has increased since NAFTA went into effect.

There are other free trade zones. LAFTA is the Latin American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1961, and replaced in 1981 by the Latin American Integration Association. It helps Latin American countries develop economic independence from foreign powers. There is CAFTA, a recently enacted Central American Free Trade Agreement that the United States joined. There is ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines to combat communism. ASEAN signed trade agreements with Japan (1977) and the European Community (1980). All these agreements and associations seek to reduce tariffs and promote free trade.

The promotion of free trade has many opponents. Conservatives object to sending money to communist countries and the resultant loss of American manufacturing jobs to near-slave labor in foreign countries. Unions object to their loss of jobs. Many inside and outside the United States object to a culture of “consumerism”, such that people are encouraged to buy more than what they actually need. Brand names like McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Nike dominate television and the culture of teenagers. “McDonaldization” is when American advertising (as in the case of McDonalds) has an influence on the world culture, causing distant children (like Chinese) to repeat a McDonald’s slogan they heard on television.

'''B. Energy'''

Americans discovered crude oil (petroleum) near Titusville, Pennsylvania, and drilled their first oil there in 1859. It began yielding 25 barrels a day, but by the end of 1859 the flow had slowed to 15 barrels a day. The world would never be the same again. By 1906, American oil production had reached 126 million barrels a year. Today petroleum constitutes 40% of Americans’ overall energy consumption in the United States, with coal being the other big source of energy. Most of the cheap, readily accessible oil is under the control of Muslims in the Middle East.

To keep the price of oil higher than it would be in a free market, Middle Eastern countries formed OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 1960. The original members were Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq and also the Latin American country of Venezuela. African and Asian countries later joined OPEC too. Angered by American support of Israel during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, OPEC placed an embargo on the shipment of oil to the United States. Prices jumped by a multiple of four in two years, and there were many long lines and shortages at American gas stations. The worldwide economy was hurt by this shock in energy prices, aggravating a problem with inflation and unemployment late in the 1970s. Japan, which relies heavily on oil imports, was hit hard. But OPEC’s influence has steadily declined due to increased competition by other countries. Mexico and Russia have become large oil-producing nations, and they have not joined OPEC. In 2007, the net revenues from oil to OPEC nations will be about $500 billion, while the non-OPEC nations will have net oil revenues of about $225 billion. The United States imports about $170 billion-worth more of oil than it exports.

Many claim that the involvement of the United States in the Middle East is to protect the cheap oil there. In late 1990, Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait, a large oil producer. In January and February 1991, the United States (with the support of the United Nations) responded with Operation Desert Storm, and liberated Kuwait in this Gulf War. Saddam Hussein, in retreat, lit fires on the Kuwaiti oil wells and dumped two million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf. This seemed to anger environmentalists more than the loss of life!

In the late 1990s, politicians and some scientists began to cite a warming trend in the earth’s weather as evidence of a “global warming” caused by the burning of oil and the release of chlorofluorocarbons, a chemical. They blamed factory smokestacks and automobiles, and especially refrigerators and air conditioners. The loss of trees in rain forests was also supposedly a cause of global warming. Regulators began banning the use of certain chemicals in hairspray, and the Kyoto (Japan) Treaty was proposed to limit the pollution each country could generate each year. Political opposition in America prevented the United States from ratifying the Kyoto Treaty.

'''C. Technology'''

Advances in communication technology, such as the internet and cell phones, has created a worldwide culture that increasingly prefers English over local languages. English is easier to type into a computer than Asian languages, for example. At the same time, the cultural varieties of distant places such as India and Southeast Asia can be appreciated more in the Western world. Restaurants featuring foreign food are prevalent across the United States now.

Technology has brought some medical advances, most notably in the expanded use of antibiotics after World War II. Physicians say that most of medicine today was discovered in the past 65 years. The modern inventions of the MRI and CAT scan have improved the ability view the human body, and treat illness. Other modern developments, such as widespread vaccination and insecticides, are more controversial. Preventive vaccination is credited with eliminating the terrible diseases of polio and smallpox, but other, newer vaccines are opposed by many parents.

Proposals to spend taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research are controversial and open to much criticism. In Germany, where the people experienced the horrors of the medical experiments connected with the Holocaust, the people are flatly against embryonic stem cell research. Private investors show little interest in spending their own money on this even in the United States. But a political movement linked to the abortion industry demands that taxpayer money be spent on this research, without any evidence that any good will ever come of it. If embryonic stem cell research were so great, then why wouldn’t there be many private investors spending money on it?

The United Nations promotes abortion worldwide through its U.N. Fund for Population Activities. Even though the world population will peak and begin to decline in the 21st century, the promoters of abortion continue to demand more and more killing of unborn children. This is promoted using taxpayer money. The United Nations also pushes its pro-abortion agenda through the World Health Organization (WHO).

'''D. Agriculture'''

The green revolution was a worldwide effort to increase the food supply through better farming, particularly in undernourished regions like India and South America. By increasing the amount of farmland and obtaining better crop yield from existing farms, the food supply increased such that India began producing more food than it could consume, and exported its surplus. Worldwide, the crops of rice, wheat and maize (corn) all increased.

Popular and easy to grow in the Asian climate, rice was historically the world's most popular crop. But maize (corn), wheat and sugar cane have surpassed rice in popularity. Here is the list of the most popular crops in the world today:

 1. sugar cane
 2. maize (corn)
 3. wheat
 4. rice
 5. potatoes
 6. sugar beets
 7. soybeans
 8. oil palm fruit
 9. barley
 10. tomatoes

Pesticides and fertilizers were used to increase production during the green revolution, and many wonder if they are harmful to our diet. Today, there is controversial use of genetic engineering of crops to increase crop yield (the amount of food produced per a given area).

Environmentalists complained that increased irrigation for crops has depleted ground water and an increase in the salinity of the soil. Many ground wells in the United States may be polluted, though usually from hazardous waste (such as dumped oil) rather than from fertilizers or pesticides.

'''E. Outer Space'''

In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a “Space Race” to see who could explore and perhaps claim outer space first. In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked Americans by being the first to launch spacecraft (“Sputnik”) into orbit. The first astronaut was a dog named Laika, which sadly did not return alive. The name “Sputnik” inspired the name chosen by a hippie-like leader of a new counterculture movement in San Francisco: “beatnik”. The beatniks in the late 1950s laid the foundation for the hippies in the 1960s.

Sputnik alarmed American politicians, who vowed not to remain in second place in this Space Race. America launched a project in the 1960s to land a man on the Moon, and used a series of spacecraft named “Apollo”. In 1969, with the immortal words “one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,” Astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the Moon. Some conservatives felt that the Soviets never intended to go to the Moon themselves, but wanted Americans to waste money on the project. It’s unclear what good came of the lunar project, although it did lead to the invention of Teflon, now widely used in cooking.

The Soviet Union continued a more limited space program, and in the 1970s the two superpowers began to collaborate on docketing their spacecraft together in orbit, creating space shuttles, and even building space stations. In 1975, the Apollo spacecraft and the Soviet Soyuz successful docked together in space.

Americans continued to explore planets with the Hubble Telescope (to explore distant space in 1990) and the Pathfinder space probe (landing on Mars in 1997). For most of the 20th century scientists (and popular movies) claimed that life must exist in outer space. But despite all this exploration, no extraterrestrial life has ever been found.

'''III. Security'''

As communications and travel makes the world seem like a smaller place, security issues become more important. America can no longer rely on the vast distance of the oceans to protect herself from her enemies. A terrorist is only a few hours away by plane, or by car in crossing a border.

Terrorism is the main threat. It has existed long before the 20th century. The Crusades were a reaction to medieval terrorism in Jerusalem. The anarchist movement that began in the late 1800s, and which claimed President William McKinley as a victim (to assassination) in 1901, used terrorism. In 1920, a bomb exploded in a crowd in the Wall Street district of Manhattan, killing 40 and injuring 400. A warning note read, “Remember we will not tolerate any longer. Free the political prisoners or it will be sure death for all of you. American Anarchists Fighters.” The criminals were never caught.

Both terrorism and violent anarchism seek to disrupt and defeat authority. In 1995, a Japanese cult released poisonous nerve gas in a Tokyo subway, killing 12 and injuring thousands. In late 1996, Japanese terrorists captured and held hostages at an embassy in Lima, Peru. The oldest active terrorist group in the world is the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which has attacked and bombed Britain in an attempt to force it to relinquish control of Northern Ireland.

No one wants a terrorist to obtain a nuclear bomb. Most developed countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 as a way of keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. India and Pakistan never signed this treaty, and in 1998 both successfully detonated nuclear explosions in tests, proving that they have atomic bombs.

'''A. Northern Ireland'''

Ireland is an island slightly northwest of England. “Northern Ireland” is in the northeastern one-sixth of the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland has about a million people, with slightly more Protestants than Catholics. It is part of the United Kingdom rather than the country of Ireland. Its Northern Ireland Assembly has 108 elected officials, of whom 59 are “Unionists” (who support remaining in the United Kingdom) and 42 are “Nationalist” (who seek joining the independent Irish Republic). The other seven do not specify their allegiance. The largest Christian denominations are Catholic, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Anglican Church of Ireland, and the Methodist Church, with the total number of Protestant members outnumbering the Catholics.

Irish rebellions against British control date back to rebellions in 1798 and 1803, and several secret Irish societies (such as the Defenders and Ribbonmen) played roles in those uprisings. There was an Irish Republican Army that fought the British at the Battle of Ridgeway. There was the Easter Rising from April 24 to 30, 1916, during which Irish rebels capture key locations in Dublin and proclaimed an Irish Republic. The British suppressed this and executed its leaders. But on 1919, the Irish Republic was declared through the efforts of its leader, Michael Collins (1890-1922). Michael Collins was killed just three years later during an Irish civil war.

Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom by the consent of the majority of the poipulation, and devolved government in Northern Ireland involves cross-community co-operation. This is despite the long campaign of murderous terrorism waged by the IRA, including numerous bombings of 'soft' targets (shops, restaurants, railway stations and the like) in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and a lessser but none the less deadly campaign of terrorism by Loyalist groups. The IRA terrorism campaign was financed by Americans, and the support of much of the American judiciary made the United States a safe haven for terrorists attacking an American ally.

'''B. Terrorism'''

Islamic terrorism has long plagued the Middle East. Palestinian terrorists grabbed and murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, shocking the world. A suicide bomber drove a truck of explosives up to a barracks of American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, and detonated an explosion that destroyed their building, killing 241 of them in 1983. Within a year President Reagan pulled American troops out of Beirut. In March 1998, terrorists bombed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Most suspected Osama Bin Laden as the mastermind behind these attacks.

But it was not until September 11, 2001 (9-11) that Islamic terrorism hit American soil. A group of 19 Muslims, most from Saudi Arabia, hijacked American airlines and flew one into each tower of the World Trade Center, a third into the Pentagon (probably after the pilot had trouble locating the White House from the air), and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania as the crew attempted to retake control of the plane from the terrorists. Nearly 3,000 people died when the World Trade Center collapsed from the resulting fire, as millions watched it live on television. An outpouring of support for American followed, with only Saddam Hussein of Iraq refusing to fly his flag at half-mast at the United Nations.

President George W. Bush responded by attacking Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, after the Taliban in charge of that nation refused to hand him over. Bin Laden is the leader of the terrorist organization called al Qaeda (spellings vary in translating that name from Arabic). Bin Laden fled, but al Qaeda was broken up in Afghanistan, the Taliban was overthrown, and many of Bin Laden’s top aides were killed by the end of 2001. Although a democratic provisional government has replaced the Taliban there, the persecution of Christians continues. In 2006, one Christian was targeted for execution by the Afghanistan country merely for converting from Islam, and the United States did not intervene. International pressure causes a suspension in the punishment.

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq after Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors of his nuclear facility and Americans feared that he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iraq War was initially very successful for Americans, as Baghdad was captured quicker than expected. The use of new body armor by American soldiers saved many lives that would have been lost at an earlier time. At the end of 2006 Saddam Hussein himself, after being captured by an American soldier and tried by the Iraqis, was hanged for his crimes. But in early 2007, three years after President Bush had announced victory in the war, he asked the American people to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq to try to finish the job. Terrorists there have caused a continuing stream of violence and killings for over three years.

'''C. Migration'''

In the second half of the 20th century, people increasingly migrated to the United States and Europe. In the United States, the immigrants were welcomed with jobs. In Europe, the immigrants were first welcomed with jobs and became “guest workers,” but when the jobs became scarce the governments would welcome the immigrants with welfare. Some migrated to Muslim countries in the Middle East to work on oil wells.

“Push-pull factors” caused the massive migration. The “pull factors” are those described above: better jobs and welfare. The “push factors” are poverty, violence, or religious persecution in a homeland. Hindus fled Muslim Pakistan, Afghans fled the Taliban and Cubans fled Castro. Sometimes refugee camps were necessary to take care of all the migrating people, as done in the Middle East for Palestinians and in Albania during the Kosovo crisis. Congo also established refugee camps for those fleeing from the ethnic cleansing of the tribal wars in Rwanda.

When immigrants failed to learn and speak the local language, tensions arose. By the end of the 20th century, there was growing opposition in both the United States and Europe to the large amounts of immigration.

The EU removed most internal border patrols, so people now flow freely from one country into the next, such as from Austria into Germany. The Muslim influx has been particularly high. In past centuries, churches would play a central role in integrating the immigrants into the local activities and culture. But churches, which have become largely empty in Europe anyway, cannot integrate the Muslim immigrants. In France, a politician Jean-Marie Le Pen demanded tougher controls against immigration. But the media then labeled him as a racist and he was badly defeated in the election for president in 2002. But meanwhile Islam is overtaking the Christian French culture, as the mosques are more vibrant than the churches in France now. In 2004, France desperately banned the wearing of the Muslim hijab (headscarf) girls in state schools.

Many European nations now face the controversy of whether to allow women to wear the Muslim coverings. In late 2006, the Dutch government announced its plan to ban Muslim head coverings in all public places. In Germany, many teachers are forbidden from wearing the hijab. A Belgian town banned the burqa (full-body covering) and niqab (a veil that covers only the face) entirely from its streets. In Britain, schools can fire teachers for wearing face-coverings. Even in the Muslim country of Turkey, its military rulers have banned any wearing of the Muslim veil in public buildings since the 1920s, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern Republic of Turkey.

Liberals are alarmed by this Muslim clothing because they frustrate the liberal desire to create a secular, atheistic society. It becomes difficult to complain about a cross somewhere when women are wearing burqas in glaring display of their faith. Also, some feminists object to the burqa as discriminatory towards women, subjugating them to an inferior position in society. Only in the sanctuary of the home do Muslim women remove their coverings.

In the United States, the largest group of immigrants is from Mexico, and they are pouring into Catholic churches. For example, Catholics comprise less than 10% of Utah’s population, which is predominantly Mormon, but an influx of immigrants from Mexico is boosting church attendance there. But much of this immigration is illegal, and has created a subculture of 12 million people – close to 5% of the American population – that is not even supposed to be here. Illegal immigrants are winning robotics science competitions and garnering top prizes at universities. Many become self-employed due to the laws making it a crime for companies to hire them as employees. Congress proposed creating a “guest worker” policy that would allow the illegal immigrants to stay. President Bush has promised to build a fence to stem the tide of illegal immigration, but he never seems to get around to it. Those caught for illegal immigration are typically returned to Mexico, only to return again illegally to the United States. Some have gone back and forth over a dozen times. Public schools welcome illegal immigrants, and some come here to obtain free benefits like schooling and medical care.

There has also been much migration within a same country. In developing countries, migration from rural areas to big cities caused huge increases in city population, and tons of pollution. Mexico City has become one of the most populated cities in the world from this type of migration. In developed countries like the United States, there is substantial migration in the opposite direction, from the city to the countryside, where it is easier to raise a family.

'''D. Human Rights'''

In Africa, ethnic cleansing plagued the nations of Rwanda (where the Tutsi minority was slaughtered by the Hutu majority) and in the Middle East, where the Kurds have been persecuted by Turks, Iranians and, most recently, Iraqis. 'Ethnic cleansing' (violent displacement of populations) also took place in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

International, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formed in the 1960s to combat human rights abuses. The most prominent is Amnesty International, which has sought release of political prisoners and also opposed use of the death penalty. Sometimes these groups can obtain publicity and world pressure more effectively than governments can. But these groups are often biased in what they complain about, and rarely publicize human rights abuses by communist or Islamic governments. The persecution of Christians is unlikely to generate any outrage by NGOs or the press, unless (as in Afghanistan) the persecution is an embarrassment to Republicans.

The United Nations issued a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It included in basic human rights “life, liberty, and security of person.” In the United States, Rev. Martin Luther King led a movement in the 1950s and 1960s to establish civil rights for African Americans. There were many protests and arrests, and Rev. King himself spent time in jail at one point. But he and his supporters overcame the opposition and established equal rights regardless of race. Ever since, virtually every other movement has attempted to claim authority based on this major civil rights movement. But some movements today that claim to be civil rights movements actually conflict with Rev. King’s own Christian goals. For example, Rev. King spoke out against the black Muslim movement, but that he is almost never quoted for it.

Public praise of Christian human rights workers is also rare. But in 1979 the Nobel Prize committee broke from its own tradition and gave an award to an outwardly religious woman, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, India. She was recognized for her work on behalf of the sick and poor of India. When the government of India announced its intention to tax her award, thereby preventing her from contributing it to her work, an international outcry caused the Indian government to allow her to receive her award tax-free. When Mother Teresa died in 1997, Indians gave her a funeral with full military honors!

'''IV. Education'''

The Christian population has steady increased from 0% in 6 B.C. to 33% today. Although Christians have always been a minority in the world, this minority has led the world in accomplishments and achievements.

Among Christians there has been a special group: the homeschoolers. Though even smaller in number, they have accomplished much for Christ and the world. Now that we have covered all of world history, ask yourself how many of the following homeschooled achievers you can identify:
 
 '''Homeschooled Christians'''
 
 Leonardo da Vinci
 Claude Monet
 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 
 Stonewall Jackson
 John Paul Jones
 Robert E. Lee
 Douglas MacArthur
 George Patton
 
 Alexander Graham Bell
 Thomas Edison
 Cyrus McCormick
 Orville and Wilbur Wright
 
 George Washington
 John Quincy Adams
 Thomas Jefferson
 James Madison
 William Henry Harrison
 John Tyler
 Abraham Lincoln
 Theodore Roosevelt
 
 Joan of Arc
 John the Baptist
 William Cary
 Jesus Christ
 Jonathan Edwards
 Dwight L. Moody
 John Newton
 Charles Wesley
 John Wesley
 Brigham Young
 
 George Washington Carver
 Pierre Curie
 Charles Louis Montesquieu
 Blaise Pascal
 Bernhard Riemann
 Booker T. Washington
 
 Winston Churchill
 Benjamin Franklin
 Patrick Henry
 William Penn
 Henry Clay
 
 Charles Evans Hughes
 John Jay
 John Marshall
 John Rutledge
 
 Hans Christian Andersen
 Pearl S. Buck
 Agatha Christie
 Charles Dickens
 Bret Harte
 C.S. Lewis
 Sean O’Casey
 George Bernard Shaw
 Mark Twain
 Daniel Webster
 
 George Clymer
 Benjamin Franklin
 William Livingston
 George Mason
 Charles Pickney III
 George Wyeth
 
 Ansel Adams
 Clara Barton
 John Burroughs
 Andrew Carnegie
 George Rogers Clark
 Florence Nightingale
 Leo Tolstoy
 
== and . . . you??? ==

[[Category:History]]

Timor-Leste

2007-09-09T20:47:06Z

Pachyderm:

'''East Timor''' is the country occupying the eastern half of the island of Timor in the Malay Archipelago and some smaller islands nearby. It is the youngest nation in the world having achieved independence from [[Indonesia]] in 1999.

The indigenous population are a mix of Papuan, Malay and Polynesian origin. The predominant language is Tetum. The first European invaders were the Portuguese in 1520 followed by the Spanish and the Dutch. The latter fought with the Portuguese for occupation of the territory settling eventually on a division with the western half of the island as Dutch territory and the eastern Portuguese. The island was occupied by the Japanese during [[World War 2]].

At the end of the War the Portuguese retained control of the eastern half of the island while the western half became part of the newly independent Indonesia. By 1975 Freitlin, an independence movement, had gained control of much of East Timor from the Portuguese. The Indonesian government were able to portray Freitlin as a communist organisation and, with the tacit support of Western governments, invaded in 1975 and annexed the territory. East Timor was declared part of Indonesia in 1976. Estimates of the death toll amongst the East Timorese during the invasion and subsequent occupation vary. Some observers place it as high as 200,000 (in a population of only 650,00) whilst others estimate it to be 60,000. In spite of this the Indonesians were able to enjoy the continuing support of Western governments for their occupation until a number of high profile atrocities such as the massacre of protesters in the capital, Dilli, in 1991 led to mounting international pressure for independence.

A referendum in 1999 had four fifths of the population supporting independence but pro-Indonesian rioters, often aided by the Indonesian army, made the transition to sovereignty a violent process with thousands fleeing their homes. East Timor achieved full sovereignty in May 1999.

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Gaullism

2007-09-09T20:45:12Z

Pachyderm:

'''Gaullism''' is the political philosophy associated with [[Charles De Gaulle]], the former French President. It emphasizes protecting the ''grandeur'' of France. Traditionally, this has often meant opposing the interests of the [[United Kingdom]] and [[United States]]. On the French political spectrum, it is a center-right political philosophy.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:France]]

Opera

2007-09-09T20:43:53Z

Pachyderm:

An '''opera''' is a theatrical performance involving song. The first opera was probably performed in the 1500s and opera as an [[art]] form began in 1600.

== See also ==

*[[Luciano Pavarotti]]

[[Category:Music]]

Talk:Homicide Bomber

2007-09-09T20:37:37Z

Pachyderm:

I have to say, I've always been a bit confused by the idea inherent in this phrase that bombers are not intending to commit homicide unless they too will be victims of the blast? If a "homicide bomber" is one that kills himself in order to kill his victims, what do you call someone who plants a bomb and runs away, escaping safely before the bomb explodes? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:27, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

The point is that the term "suicide bomber" is a politically correct term intending to minimize the suffering of the victims of the bombing. A true suicide bomber would be someone that blows themselves up only. "Pandeism" is belief in many (false) gods, isn't it? This is a Christian conservative website, don't push your liberal beliefs here. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:13, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

:Friend, where on earth did you get the idea that Pandeism is a "belief in many (false) gods"? Pandeism, as is well documented to students of theology, is the belief in '''''one''''' God, the God that is the Creator and the ''sum principia'' of the Universe.... the concept is traceable to [[Xenophanes]] of Colophon, [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus, and the Milesian philosophers, [[Thales]] and [[Anaximander]], among others.... it may well have been the concept Jesus was communicating -- I refer you to Matthew 25:31-46:
::When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me'''.
::Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, '''Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me'''. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.
:I invite you to consider that what you do unto your fellow man (no matter the standing of his faith in comparison to yours) you do unto God.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 14:48, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Loathe though I am to say it, I agree with you on this Pandeism. Without trying to start a liberal/conservative war (which is somewhat inevitable but foolish) I just can't see why this debate exists. I approach the issue, not from a political standpoint, but from the point of view of a user of the English language. Simply put, in the context of terrorist attacks, since it is impossible to detonate a bomb without an intent to kill others (bomb=weapon):

* A Bomber is someone who plants a bomb to kill others and runs away;
* A Homicide Bomber ''conveys no further information'' than the above;
* A Suicide Bomber kills others, and himself.

It's simply a matter of the English language, not your polticial viewpoint. The simplest construction which conveys the greatest amount of information is ALWAYS the best. If you choose to use the term Homicide Bomber, you must add extra wording along the lines of "who took his own life in the act", or unecessary verbiage to that effect. Not only this, but the act of suicide bombing is an act of violence only used by a subset of terrorists - so the nature of the act is in itself defining, and separates it form other forms of terrorism. It is part of the story. I reject the notion that this is a debate with political/liberal/conservative overtones and submit that it is simply a matter of clarity in use of language. [[User:AncientSage|AncientSage]] 15:20, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:Well I'll be completely honest, when I hear "Homicide bomber" it always makes me think of "homocide" -- the word that detectives often use to describe a murder of one homosexual by another (usually a gay lover, in a fight).... see [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homocide Urban Dictionary], [http://whitakeronline.org/blog/2005/11/14/homocide/ this blog], etc.... so the phrase just always makes me think of a bomber who kills homosexuals.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 16:34, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Don't tease young Schultzy - he means well, but he needs to think these things through a little more ;-) [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 16:37, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Queen Elizabeth II

2007-09-09T19:51:48Z

Pachyderm: /* Marriage and Children */

[[Image:Elizabeth-II.jpg|right|Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II|thumb]]
Her Majesty '''Queen Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, born April 21, 1926) is the reigning monarch and current [[head of state]] (1952-) of the [[United Kingdom]] and of several former British colonies, including [[Canada]] and [[Australia]]. She is the elder daughter of King [[George VI]] and the late [[Queen Elizabeth]], the [[HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother|Queen Mother]].

In Britain, she is referred to formally as "Her Majesty the Queen", but is generally called simply "the Queen". Her full title, by virtue of the Royal Titles Act of 1953, is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

==Early life==
She was the first child of The Duke and Duchess of York, who later became King [[George VI]] and Queen Consort Elizabeth. At birth she stood third in line of succession to the throne after Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII), and her father, The Duke of York. It was not expected that her father would become King, or that she would become Queen.

Princess Elizabeth's quiet family life came to an end in 1936, when her grandfather, King [[George V]], died. His eldest son came to the throne as King [[Edward VIII]], but, before the end of the year, King Edward VIII had decided to give up the throne in order to marry the woman he loved, Mrs [[Wallis Simpson]].

Upon Edward's abdication, Princess Elizabeth's father acceded to the throne as King George VI, and in 1937, Princess Elizabeth attended her parents' coronation in Westminster Abbey. This put Princess Elizabeth first in line to the throne.

The Princess received home tuition at Sandringham and [[Buckingham Palace]] during the 1930s, where her tutors included her father and Henry Marten, the Vice-Provost of Eton. She was also instructed in religion by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. Now that she had became first in line to throne, Elizabeth started to study constitutional history and law as preparation for her future role as Queen. Elizabeth also learned French from various French and Belgian governesses, this skill standing The Queen in good stead, as she often has cause to use it when speaking to ambassadors and heads of state from French-speaking countries, and when visiting French-speaking areas of [[Canada]].

In 1940, at the height of the Blitz, the young Princess was moved to the safety of [[Windsor Castle]], where she spent most of the war years.

==Marriage and Children ==
She married [[Duke of Edinburgh|Prince Philip Mountbatten]] of [[Greece]] and [[Denmark]] on November 20, 1947. Her first child, [[Prince Charles]], now The [[Prince of Wales]], first heir to the throne, was born in 1948, and his sister, [[Princess Anne]], now The Princess Royal, two years later. After Princess Elizabeth became Queen, their third child, [[Prince Andrew]], arrived in 1960 and the fourth, [[Prince Edward]], in 1964.

==Death of Father==
On Wednesday, February 6, 1952, Princess Elizabeth, who was on a tour of [[Kenya]] and staying at the 'Treetops' resort, received the news of her father's death at Sandringham and her own accession to the throne.

==Coronation==
On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth was crowned Queen of the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]] and [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]] and her other realms and territories at [[Westminster Abbey]] by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], in the traditional coronation ceremony that has been used for at least 1000 years.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Elizabeth 2}}
[[Category:United Kingdom Monarchs]]

[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

Conservapedia terms

2007-09-09T16:09:07Z

Pachyderm: Can't leave that out...

Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed on [[Conservapedia]]. Some are entirely original to [[Conservapedia]], while others were developed in an original manner here. Examples include:

*[[liberal deceit]]
*[[liberal style]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|greatest conservative songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|greatest conservative movies]]
*[[movement conservative]]
*[[Godless Liberal]]
*[[Godspeed]]

This list will grow over time, and feel free to add to it.

Conservapedia terms

2007-09-09T15:59:45Z

Pachyderm:

Conservapedia terms are words, phrases or concepts developed on [[Conservapedia]]. Some are entirely original to [[Conservapedia]], while others were developed in an original manner here. Examples include:

*[[liberal deceit]]
*[[liberal style]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|greatest conservative songs]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies|greatest conservative movies]]
*[[movement conservative]]
*[[Godless Liberal]]

This list will grow over time, and feel free to add to it.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-09T15:50:17Z

Pachyderm:

{{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]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]] 

== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Generally, it's more effective to respond to "I don't feel I have enough information to help you" with more information, not vague insinuations of cowardice. I didn't come here to get into a fight about subjects I'm not well-informed about, either. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 15:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::<s>Ok, so there's a broken link here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#_note-14 (footnote 15)] that is supposed to link here [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Simple maintance chore. It's been broken for two years.</s> [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Nevermind. Some courageous soul fixed it. I'd love to find out who, and follow the remainder of his editing career. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::It was WP editor SallyForth123 yesterday. Didn't take long to get a response, they're accusing her of being a robot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet] And the revert war is on in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=148678523&oldid=148678342 ''Criticism of Berlet'']. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:49, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Typical. Look at the reactions. ''Deja vu'' all over again:

:"I suggest you explain '''what you plan to do on the talk page first'''... doing these massive edits... you have introduced errors, and you have also added unsourced material. Since this is a biographical article of a living person, you need to tread very carefully. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes first on the talk page, and try to get consensus....

::"My edits were not massive: they were all trivial....

:"I suggest you take it easy on this article – if you want to edit it, do it in small bits, that are easy for others to inspect and follow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet]
[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:59, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's some material User:SallyForth123 could insert. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChip_Berlet&diff=28878750&oldid=28868907#CounterSpy]

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==hypocricy?==
As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::It's related to this. [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?FormMode=Detail&ID=161&EID=174780-8192004] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::::: The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.

::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually, the report found that Britannica was more accurate, as everyone expected it would be. The surprise was that they were realitively close. Of course, the study looked at specific articles in a specific field; it was hardly very broad or comprehensive. And the accuracy of the study itself has been criticized. This, however, does start to address the ''real'' problems of Wikipedia, not the "it's nothing but porn and rock bands" fallacy. I'm sure Britannica is more accurate; the advantages of Wikipedia are that it's free and it has many more articles. Additionally, some believe that Wikipedia's longer (on the average) articles cover more information, and are therefore better. Of course, this is highly debatable, and I tend to disagree, in many cases at least. Sometimes more is better. To pick a random article, I'd say the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book the Domesday Book] is better than [[Domesday Book|the one here]]. It has more information, and if it's more than someone needs, they can stop reading after the first couple paragraphs. And lest anyone in a glass house strat throwing stones, Conservapedia has articles from the way too "[[George VI|concise]]" to the [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)|overly wordy]]. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Example of Pro-Gay Bias==

The category allowing users to self identify as heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. We should add this to the list.[[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:24, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Added. That entire list has many interesting items. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wow. Unbelievable! How can anyone argue now that there is no liberal bias on Wiki in light of that? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:31, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. If anything, having only a "homosexual" group brands them as abnormal, as everyone else is assumed to be normal and heterosexual. There's a homosexual group without a heterosexual group for the same reason that there are gay bars but not "straight bars". All bars are by default assumed straight, and so are editors. It's an interesting case of what could possibly be bias, but it's not really pro-gay.

--[[User:Choronzon|Choronzon]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
:Sheeesh, don't people ever get tired of talking about homosexuality? Yes. It exists. It alsways has, and it always will. And no, it has not always been regarded as acceptable conduct. Yes, the Greeks and other ancients were opnely gay,and there '''''is''''' a reason ''why'', based upon human experience, that gay behavior was legislated against by ''both'' God, and man.

:Why can't we leave the discussion at that? Every day, gay gay gay gay gay gay gay is all we hear? Really, it gets quite tiresome. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

What reasons are those, that gayness is legislated against by God and man?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 23:50, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-Homeschool bias==

Another category that was deleted was the list of users who are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Wikipedians_who_homeschool homeschooled]. Again, the claim was that the category wasn't useful, but I think that wiki wants to prevent homeschoolers from organizing so that we can't share ideas. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:27, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. Meanwhile, there are plenty of categories listing Wiki users by which high school they graduated from. What if they graduated from homeschooling? (Rhetorical question there.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:34, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== A word about wikipedia ==

It is '''people''' who write the articles, and since many (as you Americans call liberals) are using wikipedia and editing it, it is simply unavoidable that a small bias will show. Do take into account the VAST numbers of articles and compare them to the ones that are biased I am pretty sure it wont be a big percantage. How can this be corrected? By going in there and editing for yourself and make sure that you can back up your claims with reliable sources. Obvious transgresions by the administrators of wikipedia can be taken higher up, all the way to the top. And if someone believes that every single administartor all the way to the top is currupt advocate of the devil who only wishes to hide the truth...then I can only say your probably paranoid. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:40, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I know Jimbo, and so does Ed Poor. He sets the marching orders for institutionalized Liberal bias, on the part of the very top echelons of Bureaucrats. They in turn advance users who they trust and share like interests and ideas to Sysops. It is only natural. However this is why they have the entrenched bias they do. Biased articles about Conservatives and those whose POV they disagree with, languish unchanged for days or weeks, and endless arguments and reviews are oftentimes needed to remove the bias vandalism. And that is why Conservapedia exists, and other wiki-type encyclopedias and information sites. I think that is a good thing. Does bias exist here on CP? Of course it does. So if there is left-leaning bias on some WP articles, and right-leaning bias here at CP, that is a good example of a free marketplace, no? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

**Have you done anything to reduce the liberal bias on wikipedia? --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 21:11, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

That's a stupid question, [[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]]. It's the equivalent of asking a businessman in the garment district of [[New York City]] whether he's ''done'' anything to counteract the baleful influence of the [[Mafia]]. Or maybe it would be like asking me, for example, whether I've ''done'' anything about the [[sin]] that runs rampant in the [[Episcopal Church]], and has been running rampant for more than forty years, that prompted me to leave it and find a proper Baptist church.

Where I come from, we have proper uses for organic fertilizer, and ''im''proper uses.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I have personally attempted to correct some liberal bias on Wikipedia but found that to be hopeless. My factual additions to an entry that related to education and evolution, which were not even about the theory itself, were reverted within 60 seconds. Other factual edits, like my additions there to an entry about Wikipedia itself, were gradually altered and removed over time. Wikipedia is beyond salvage value at this point.

Sometimes something becomes so broken that it makes more sense just to throw it out and get something new. Wikipedia, with all its bias and gossip and pornography and leadership trying to profit from a new search engine, is at that point. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== Many edits by involved parties. ==

Recent software Wikiscanner has found that many interested parties have edited their own Wikipedia articles and not been caught. See [http://computerworld.com/blogs/node/6052] [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/business/wiki.php] [http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-1062639.html] [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14054/53/]. Even the liberals happy about this [http://uruknet.info/?p=m35491&s1=h1]!

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-09T15:46:53Z

Pachyderm:

{{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]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]] 

== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Generally, it's more effective to respond to "I don't feel I have enough information to help you" with more information, not vague insinuations of cowardice. I didn't come here to get into a fight about subjects I'm not well-informed about, either. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 15:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::<s>Ok, so there's a broken link here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#_note-14 (footnote 15)] that is supposed to link here [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Simple maintance chore. It's been broken for two years.</s> [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Nevermind. Some courageous soul fixed it. I'd love to find out who, and follow the remainder of his editing career. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::It was WP editor SallyForth123 yesterday. Didn't take long to get a response, they're accusing her of being a robot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet] And the revert war is on in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=148678523&oldid=148678342 ''Criticism of Berlet'']. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:49, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Typical. Look at the reactions. ''Deja vu'' all over again:

:"I suggest you explain '''what you plan to do on the talk page first'''... doing these massive edits... you have introduced errors, and you have also added unsourced material. Since this is a biographical article of a living person, you need to tread very carefully. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes first on the talk page, and try to get consensus....

::"My edits were not massive: they were all trivial....

:"I suggest you take it easy on this article – if you want to edit it, do it in small bits, that are easy for others to inspect and follow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet]
[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:59, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's some material User:SallyForth123 could insert. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChip_Berlet&diff=28878750&oldid=28868907#CounterSpy]

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==hypocricy?==
As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::It's related to this. [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?FormMode=Detail&ID=161&EID=174780-8192004] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::::: The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.

::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually, the report found that Britannica was more accurate, as everyone expected it would be. The surprise was that they were realitively close. Of course, the study looked at specific articles in a specific field; it was hardly very broad or comprehensive. And the accuracy of the study itself has been criticized. This, however, does start to address the ''real'' problems of Wikipedia, not the "it's nothing but porn and rock bands" fallacy. I'm sure Britannica is more accurate; the advantages of Wikipedia are that it's free and it has many more articles. Additionally, some believe that Wikipedia's longer (on the average) articles cover more information, and are therefore better. Of course, this is highly debatable, and I tend to disagree, in many cases at least. Sometimes more is better. To pick a random article, I'd say the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book the Domesday Book] is better than [[Domesday Book|the one here]]. It has more information, and if it's more than someone needs, they can stop reading after the first couple paragraphs. And lest anyone in a glass house strat throwing stones, Conservapedia has articles from the way too "[[George VI|concise]]" to the [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)|overly wordy]]. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Example of Pro-Gay Bias==

The category allowing users to self identify as heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. We should add this to the list.[[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:24, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Added. That entire list has many interesting items. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wow. Unbelievable! How can anyone argue now that there is no liberal bias on Wiki in light of that? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:31, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. If anything, having only a "homosexual" group brands them as abnormal, as everyone else is assumed to be normal and heterosexual. There's a homosexual group without a heterosexual group for the same reason that there are gay bars but not "straight bars". All bars are by default assumed straight, and so are editors. It's an interesting case of what could possibly be bias, but it's not really pro-gay.

--[[User:Choronzon|Choronzon]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
:Sheeesh, don't people ever get tired of talking about homosexuality? Yes. It exists. It alsways has, and it always will. And no, it has not always been regarded as acceptable conduct. Yes, the Greeks and other ancients were opnely gay,and there '''''is''''' a reason ''why'', based upon human experience, that gay behavior was legislated against by ''both'' God, and man.

:Why can't we leave the discussion at that? Every day, gay gay gay gay gay gay gay is all we hear? Really, it gets quite tiresome. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

What reasons are those, that gayness is legislated against by God and man?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 23:50, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-Homeschool bias==

Another category that was deleted was the list of users who are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Wikipedians_who_homeschool homeschooled]. Again, the claim was that the category wasn't useful, but I think that wiki wants to prevent homeschoolers from organizing so that we can't share ideas. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:27, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. Meanwhile, there are plenty of categories listing Wiki users by which high school they graduated from. What if they graduated from homeschooling? (Rhetorical question there.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:34, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== A word about wikipedia ==

It is '''people''' who write the articles, and since many (as you Americans call liberals) are using wikipedia and editing it, it is simply unavoidable that a small bias will show. Do take into account the VAST numbers of articles and compare them to the ones that are biased I am pretty sure it wont be a big percantage. How can this be corrected? By going in there and editing for yourself and make sure that you can back up your claims with reliable sources. Obvious transgresions by the administrators of wikipedia can be taken higher up, all the way to the top. And if someone believes that every single administartor all the way to the top is currupt advocate of the devil who only wishes to hide the truth...then I can only say your probably paranoid. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:40, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I know Jimbo, and so does Ed Poor. He sets the marching orders for institutionalized Liberal bias, on the part of the very top echelons of Bureaucrats. They in turn advance users who they trust and share like interests and ideas to Sysops. It is only natural. However this is why they have the entrenched bias they do. Biased articles about Conservatives and those whose POV they disagree with, languish unchanged for days or weeks, and endless arguments and reviews are oftentimes needed to remove the bias vandalism. And that is why Conservapedia exists, and other wiki-type encyclopedias and information sites. I think that is a good thing. Does bias exist here on CP? Of course it does. So if there is left-leaning bias on some WP articles, and right-leaning bias here at CP, that is a good example of a free marketplace, no? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

**Have you done anything to reduce the liberal bias on wikipedia? --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 21:11, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

That's a stupid question, [[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]]. It's the equivalent of asking a businessman in the garment district of [[New York City]] whether he's ''done'' anything to counteract the baleful influence of the [[Mafia]]. Or maybe it would be like asking me, for example, whether I've ''done'' anything about the [[sin]] that runs rampant in the [[Episcopal Church]], and has been running rampant for more than forty years, that prompted me to leave it and find a proper Baptist church.

Where I come from, we have proper uses for organic fertilizer, and ''im''proper uses.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I have personally attempted to correct some liberal bias on Wikipedia but found that to be hopeless. My factual additions to an entry that related to education and evolution, which were not even about the theory itself, were reverted within 60 seconds. Other factual edits, like my additions there to an entry about Wikipedia itself, were gradually altered and removed over time. Wikipedia is beyond salvage value at this point.

Sometimes something becomes so broken that it makes more sense just to throw it out and get something new. Wikipedia, with all its bias and gossip and pornography and leadership trying to profit from a new search engine, is at that point. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

== Many edits by involved parties. ==

Recent software Wikiscanner has found that many interested parties have edited their own Wikipedia articles and not been caught. See [http://computerworld.com/blogs/node/6052] [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/business/wiki.php] [http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/wikipedia-and-the-art-of-censorship-1062639.html] [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14054/53/]. Even the liberals happy about this [http://uruknet.info/?p=m35491&s1=h1]!

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is condoning suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Gettysburg Address

2007-09-08T15:07:48Z

Pachyderm: Reception of speech

[[Image:Lincoln at Gettysburg.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Abraham Lincoln (center) at the dedication of the national cemetery at Gettysburg, November 19, 1863.]]
At the end of the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], more than 51,000 Confederate and Union soldiers were wounded, missing, or dead. Many of those who died were laid in makeshift graves along the battlefield. Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin commissioned David Wills, an attorney, to purchase land for a proper burial site for the deceased Union soldiers. Wills acquired 17 acres for the cemetery, which was planned and designed by landscape architect William Saunders.

The cemetery was dedicated on November 19, 1863. The main speaker for the event was [[Edward Everett]], one of the nation’s foremost orators. President [[Abraham Lincoln]] was also invited to speak “as Chief Executive of the nation, formally [to] set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few appropriate remarks.” At the ceremony, Everett spoke for more than 2 hours; Lincoln spoke for 2 minutes.

President Lincoln had given his brief speech a lot of thought. He saw meaning in the fact that the Union victory at Gettysburg coincided with the nation’s birthday; but rather than focus on the specific battle in his remarks, he wanted to present a broad statement about the larger significance of the war. He invoked the Declaration of Independence, and its principles of liberty and equality, and he spoke of “a new birth of freedom” for the nation. In his brief address, he continued to reshape the aims of the war for the American people—transforming it from a war for Union to a war for Union and freedom. Although Lincoln expressed disappointment in the speech initially, and it was poorly received nationally (The ''Chicago Times'' commented that "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances") it has since come to be regarded as one of the most elegant and eloquent speeches in U.S. history.<ref>Bill Bryson, Made in America (London 1994) p96</ref>

----
''Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.''

''Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.''

''But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

''Abraham Lincoln''
----
{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=36][http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html]}}

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:United States History]][[Category:American Civil War]][[Category:American State Papers]]

Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen

2007-09-07T23:33:47Z

Pachyderm: You could start here.

Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2007-09-07T23:23:58Z

Pachyderm:

Conservative novels exist, and some are immensely influential. Here is our growing list. Please add to it.

#"Animal Farm," by [[George Orwell]].
#"The First Circle," by [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]].
#"Advise and Consent," by Allen Drury.
#"Nineteen Eighty-Four", by George Orwell.
[[category:essay]]

Talk:World History Lecture Thirteen

2007-09-07T22:37:14Z

Pachyderm: Still waiting for the courtesy of a response.

{{protect|Geo.plrd}}

== Somalia ==

Somalia was formed from British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland but NOT French Somaliland. French Somaliland became the separate independent state of [[Djibouti]].

Also, you have omitted the significant colonial acquisitions made by Germany between the 1880s and the 1914-18 War: Kamerun, German South West Africa, German East Africa (Tanganyika). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Mrs Gandhi ==
did not succeed her father, Nehru, on his death but two years later. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== UK/Palestine==
The UK returned its mandate over Palestine to the UN. It did not 'ask the UN to partition Palestine'. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Golda Meir ==
''Golda Meir was the third women in history to run a nation''

Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Anne, Christina of Sweden, Catherine the Great, the Dowager Empress Cixi... [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Ethnic Cleansing ==
Your comments are a disgrace. 'Ethnic cleansing' and racial murder by all parties in Bosnia is well-documented, but was principally carried out by Serbs of Moslems. To try and deny this by blaming it on an 'anti-Christian' press is obscene. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Errors ==
''"Latin America" is Spanish America and Brazil, where Portuguese is spoken. Put another way, Latin America is all of America south of the United States.''

No: what about Surinam, Guyana and French Guiana? they do not speak Spanish or Portugese.

Also, many other errors in this essay (and others) have been pointed out to you. Why do you persist in perpetuating inaccuracies? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]]

.

Talk:The Taming of the Shrew

2007-09-07T17:53:08Z

Pachyderm:

Help: can anyone explain why the categories I've inserted aren't showing? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:45, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I fixed it. For the record, someone ended a reference with <nowiki><ref/></nowiki> instead of <nowiki></ref></nowiki>, which made the software think the reference didn't actually ever have an end. Due to that, the software was including the rest of the page in the reference and not displaying it as expected. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 13:48, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Thank you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:53, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The Taming of the Shrew

2007-09-07T17:45:49Z

Pachyderm: New page: Help: can anyone explain why the categories I've inserted aren't showing? ~~~~

Help: can anyone explain why the categories I've inserted aren't showing? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:45, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

The Taming of the Shrew

2007-09-07T17:44:55Z

Pachyderm:

'''The Taming of the Shrew''' is a play by [[William Shakespeare]] about two parallel courtships with very different results. The main plot is about how Petruchio tames a shrewish woman called Katharina to a submissive and pleasing wife. <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: Vol, 1]], by William George Clarke and William Aldis Wright, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, pp. 199-228. <ref/>

====References====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Taming of the Shrew, The}}

[[Category:Plays]]
[[Category:Literature]]

The Taming of the Shrew

2007-09-07T17:05:12Z

Pachyderm:

'''The Taming of the Shrew''' is a play by [[William Shakespeare]] about two parallel courtships with very different results. The main plot is about how Petruchio tames a shrewish woman called Katharina to a submissive and pleasing wife. <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: Vol, 1]], by William George Clarke and William Aldis Wright, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, pp. 199-228. <ref/>

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Plays]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Taming of the Shrew, The}}
[[Category:Plays]]
[[Category:Shakespeare]]