Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

I K Brunel

2012-09-08T20:41:32Z

PortlyMort: Redirected page to Isambard Kingdom Brunel

#redirect[[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]]

I. K. Brunel

2012-09-08T20:41:04Z

PortlyMort: Redirected page to Isambard Kingdom Brunel

#redirect[[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]]

I.K. Brunel

2012-09-08T20:40:40Z

PortlyMort: Redirected page to Isambard Kingdom Brunel

#redirect[[Isambard Kingdom Brunel]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-15T04:12:30Z

PortlyMort: /* A bit confused */ new section

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
:The US girls have won the gold medal! [http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/08/09/us-beats-japan-for-third-straight-olympic-gold-in-women-soccer/] --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 17:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::What is "the theory"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: See [[User:Conservative]]'s rant somewhere above on this page. It's confusing, and I don't feel like repeating all of it, especially since I don't think it's accurate (though as an empiricist, I'm willing to put it to the test). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
Seems that the highly promiscous gay diver has been eliminated, news article said he has been spending to much time at gay rallies instead of training [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:33, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: I did not just say that about the gay diver. Who signed my name to that comment? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:53, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Looking through the edit history, it appears to be [[User:Nacacube]], who for some reason decided to affix my username to his comment. I don't even know how he did it, since he obviously didn't copy and paste - the time is different. Strange. Message left on his talk page. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:55, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics. In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics. Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world. Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined. So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: 4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Assuming GregG calculated the p-value correctly, he is correct in that there is no statistical significance just from this one test. Generally, you would need a p value of 0.05 or less for it to be significant (or by stricter standards, 0.01). 0.73 is nowhere near that. I'm not going to verify the calculations, but it seems right. And assuming it's right, GregG is correct that it is not significant. However, if repeated tests showed a 4% decrease, that would be significant. We can run it again in 2014 and 2016, and beyond. And possibly we would have more nations to work with in those years. Keep in mind that the Winter Olympics (2014) have fewer total medals, so a 4% drop would be less significant, by itself. But if demonstrated, it could show significance of the trend. Something inonsistent with the 4% decrease, such as a small increase, would indicate no correlation. Bottom line is that this one sample test can't disprove the correlation by itself, but it doesn't prove it either. I'm an actuarial science major at school, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. A repeated 4% decrease would be significant. But for the moment, it's not. I'm going to retroactively analyze the 2008 medal data, although we'll have fewer countries. When I'm done, I'll post the results. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Here is the medal data from previous years from the original post, omitting any countries that legalized same-sex marriage after 2008
Belgium - 5 in 2000, 2 in 2008
Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2008
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 16 in 2008
Norway - 6 in 2004, 9 in 2012
South Africa - 6 in 2004, 1 in 2008
Spain - 19 in 2004, 18 in 2012
Total - 73 expected, 64 actual

This is a decrease of 9 medals out of 73, a 12.3% decrease.

Let's look at the countries that legalized same-sex marriage between 2000 and 2004, as far back as we can go.

Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2004
Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 22 in 2004
Total - 30 in 2000, 25 in 2004
This is a 16.7% decrease, but with far too small a sample size to be significant by itself. [[User:GregG]], care to run the significance test?
Also of note, there appears to be something going on with the Belgians and Dutch, who have seen a consistent decline, while the rest of the nations have not, apparently. Since they are geographically and culturally close, this may be relevant. Ignoring them, we have no data for 2004, a 4.6% INCREASE in 2008, and again a 4.6% increase in 2012, neither of which is statistically significant by itself, and probably still not together. (Note: 4.6% increase is just as statistically significant as 4.6% decrease. In this case, not very) Of course, we can't just kick the two lowest samples out of the data set. But there seems to be some factor that has steadily brought the Dutch and Belgian totals down, without influencing anyone else. Was something else going on in Belgium and the Netherlands at the same time? Or was the 2000 medals we're using as the baseline simply an anomaly? I'm guessing the latter. 2000 was the Dutch's best Olympics EVER. It wasn't the Belgians', but even the 40% decrease from 2000 to 2004 isn't significant when they only had 5 to begin with. I'm going to rerun this data when I have more time, using totals from the three previous summer Olympics, and totals from all Olympiads thereafter, multiplying the latter by 3 or 1.5 if necessary, where there are fewer years, although I'll note where so as not to effect the significance test. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:41, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
: Going in alphabetical order,
Belgium - 14 from 1992-2000, 8 from 2004-2012 (no reweighting necessary)
Canada - 48 from 1996-2004, 36 from 2008-2012, multiply by 1.5 to weight as if there were 3 Olympics = 54 weighted total
Denmark - 21 from 2000-2008, 9 in 2012, reweights as 27
Iceland - 2 from 2000-2008, 0 in 2012, reweights as 0
Netherlands - 59 from 1992-2000, 58 from 2004-2012, no reweighting necessary
Norway - 23 from 1996-2004, 13 in 2008-2012, reweight as 19.5 due to lack of future data
Portugal - 7 from 2000-2008, 1 in 2012, reweights as 3
South Africa - 17 from 1996-2004, 7 from 2008-2012, reweight as 10.5
Spain - 47 from 1996-2004, 35 from 2008-2012, reweights as 52.5
Sweden - 24 from 2000-2008, 8 in 2012, reweights as 24
Total - 262 "baseline", 256.5 actual+projected, decrease of 5.5, or 2.1%. Smaller percentage, but with a larger sample size, it could have a higher significance. Or the two could cancel out. I can't do the math in my head. [[User:GregG]], do you mind doing the calculations again? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:52, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::First, for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008, I am going to use the 2004 total medals awarded for both 2000 and 2004 (there isn't much of a difference: 928 medals in 2000, 929 in 2004). The pre-same-sex-marriage proportion of medals won is 7.858%, the post proportion won is 6.681%. The p-value is 0.3244, which indicates no significance at any common alpha level.
::Second, for countries implementing same-sex marriage before 2004, we have the proportion of medals won in 2000 by those countries as 3.233%, and the proportion of medals won in 2004 by those countries is 2.691%. The p-value is 0.4912, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level.
::I will take a look at how to proceed with your final set of data. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:10, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::One would expect some time period before the adoption of the [[same-sex marriage]] and its harmful effect, so I don't think it's meaningful to go back to 2004 and 2000. The trend line from 2008 to this year is probably a better indicator.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage between 2008 and 2012 (Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden):
:::::Those countries won 15 medals out of 958 in 2008.
:::::Those countries won 18 medals out of 962 in 2012.
::::The proportion of medals won by those countries actually went up from 2008 to 2012 (1.566% to 1.871%); the p-value, though, is 0.6068, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:21, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::The shortness of time between the adoption of same-sex marriage by those nations and their medals at the 2012 Games renders that particular analysis less meaningful. More significant, I think, would be nations that adopted same-sex marriage before 2008 and how they then trended lower in medal count from 2008 to 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008 and the medal counts for 2008 and 2012 (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain)
:::::::Belgium: 2 in 2008, 3 in 2012
:::::::Canada: 18 in 2008, 18 in 2012
:::::::Netherlands: 16 in 2008, 20 in 2012
:::::::Norway: 9 in 2008, 4 in 2012
:::::::South Africa: 1 in 2008, 6 in 2012
:::::::Spain: 18 in 2008, 17 in 2012
:::::::Total: 64 in 2008, 68 in 2012
::::::Again, the proportion of medals won went up from 2008 (6.68%) to 2012 (7.07%). The p-value is 0.7369, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. And, since this data set is rather scant (and, to be fair, we are having to make assumptions that might not exactly hold water but should be good approximations, like the number of medals won being a binomial distribution, in order to draw any conclusions from the data), I would surmise that you're not going to be able to get much evidence from just these data. Perhaps we will have to wait and see at the 2016 Summer Olympics. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:57, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

:::::::Netherlands and South Africa seem to distort the results here. Removing those anomalies results in a decline from 47 to 42 - more than a 10% decrease. For example, it appears that Netherlands did unusually poorly in 2008, which may result in its analomous increase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Now it looks like you're just cherry-picking the data to get the conclusion you want. ''A priori'', we would expect that such issues would average out. In fact, you suggested comparing 2008 medal counts to 2012 medal counts.
::::::::Also, I haven't run the numbers, but I think that even if you exclude the Netherlands and South Africa, you would still not have statistical significance due to the low number of successes that are expected by those countries. As an example, if we flip a fair coin 10 times, a result of 3 heads is not statistically significant at any common alpha (p=11/32). Yet 3 heads is 40% fewer heads than the 5 we would expect. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:50, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::If the Netherlands and South Africa are to be excluded then we should exclude Norway as well. I think that leaves 38 and 38? No change. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:15, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::The data are worth analyzing before drawing final conclusions. I spent some time studying South Africa and the issue, and concluded it should not be in the list. I explain this in a footnote in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

We should be comparing two sets of countries - those that implement same-sex marriage and those that prohibit same-sex marriage. When comparing sets with similar economies and populations, one could find that medal counts when down for both groups. The question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in the drop in medal count between the same-sex marriage and no same-sex marriage countries. I would guess that there are so many other factors that have a larger effect on the medal count, that any difference would be insignificant, but I welcome someone to run the numbers. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:35, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
::Nancy boys don't have kids which contributes to decline of populations as does pro-abortion/anti-life policies. see: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA Demographic winter] In 2008, there were 70 countries with sub-replacement levels of fertility. So we look at trend of medals won by countries which adopt same sex marriage. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Male homosexual couples not being able to have children the natural way is a biological fact. It doesn't depend on them being married or not. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 02:21, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, not many 8-year olds win Olympic medals, so regardless there would be no data for at least a decade or so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:57, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

== Team Sports ==

I don't really have the time to finish off this nicely, but I just did a quick count-up of medals across handball, hockey, basketball, volleyball and football. as these are probably the sports best described as '''team''' sports (ie. multiple players on a field working together and reacting to each other). Could someone do it for me and add it to the main page perhaps?
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Medals
! Status
|-
| United States of America
| 4
| Christian
|-
| Brazil
| Christian
| 3
|-
| Australia
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| France
| Increasingly Atheist
| 2
|-
| Japan
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Netherlands
| Atheist
| 2
|-
| Russia
| Christian
| 2
|-
| Spain
| Christian
| 2
|}
Countries with only 1 medal in team sports are Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden.
[[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 02:51, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:: The criteria seems pretty vague. Water polo? Tenis? Going out on a limb, cycling, and triathlon (The Brits certainly worked as a team to get gold and bronze). [[User:Nine|Nine]] 21:23, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating table. I wouldn't describe Japan as atheist, however. Shinto, perhaps, although there is a Christian population as well. I cannot think of a single prominent Japanese atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

== A bit confused ==

Recent edits seem to downplay the US women's gold in soccer/football, despite the fact that it seems this site should trumpet every accomplishment by Americans. It seems to imply that Canada should have beat the US in the semifinals, despite the fact that Conservapedia earlier predicted that Canada should underperform in Olympics because of socialism and same sex marriage. Likewise Japan, which should underperform by this site's standards, as it's been ranked [http://www.infobarrel.com/25_Most_Atheist_Countries_in_the_World the #5 most atheist country in the world]. Furthermore, this idea that the US advanced unfairly seems to contradict the idea that the Olympics is a prime example of the best of the public, in which winners are decided by pure skill and performance alone, and not by some committee of so-called "experts". Are the Olympic games not an example of the best of the public after all? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 00:12, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Utopia

2007-08-14T20:36:14Z

PortlyMort:

A '''utopian''' future is one where the populace is happy, all the time, and their lives are filled with pleasure. The term comes from the book ''Utopia'' by [[Thomas More]], a work of fiction, originally in Latin, describing an island which purports to be an ideal society. Like [[Plato]]'s ''[[The Republic]]'', it actually describes a world far from ideal. The name "Utopia" means "nowhere."

== See Also ==
[[Dystopia]], the flipside of Utopia

[[Category: Literary Devices]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-08-14T18:34:27Z

PortlyMort: /* "arcane British royalty" */

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Sexual assault

2007-08-14T18:18:47Z

PortlyMort:

'''Sexual assault''' includes wide range of victimizations, separate from [[rape]] or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.
[[category:crime]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2007-08-14T18:15:54Z

PortlyMort: /* "arcane British royalty" */

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. [[Sodomy]] is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-14T13:22:37Z

PortlyMort: /* Couric */

== This should be merged ==

Someone should move the actors "hypocrisy" to after the politicians. While the use of guns in a movie does illustrate their hypocrisy by the implication that they condone such behavior by playing a part. There are better "real life" arguments to be made, and a person reading this may see this comparison as follish and not read on.

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[Carbon offsetting]] is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost ''always'' used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
::::::I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''"It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"''
*It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'}}
*[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read ''Climate of Hunger''), but he hasn't published any new work in '''two decades.''' Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

::::So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

::::Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

:::::The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the ''exact same talking points'' in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

:::::I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::In carrying forward this ''reductio ad absurdum,'' let's examine this claim,
::::::*''kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune''
::::::Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. [[User:Order]] 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|certain]] actor wind up as POTUS. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone ''"deserves the death penalty"'' for writing a piece that he disagrees with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Am I to take it you've not heard of ''hyperbole''? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" '''(another thing in the same "not in reality category")''', "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please! ==

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Kyoto and Spain ==

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. [[User:Order]]

*Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? [[User:Order]]

Since nobody was able to explain what the 'hypocrisy', nor why it concerns a Liberal, I removed the the corresponding bit. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 18:15

Why is the article blocked? [[User:Order]] 3 august. :30 (AET)
:So you couldn't remove the corresponding bit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I couldn't. It doesn't matter too much, because the quality of most entries isn't that great either. An entry on something that backfired isn't hypocrisy, and if it then done a conservative government, it isn't exactly liberal either, but as I said somewhere else, this entire list is for entertainment only. Sure, a real encyclopedia would include such poor work, but I guess it is for the sysops to decide if they want to be foremost entertaining. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:If it's for entertainment only, why are you and others so desperate to change it? Could it be that you can't stand it when liberal hypocrisy is exposed, and you instead palm it off as mere entertainment? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::I am not desperate to change it. I would however advise to have everybody sign their fun fact on liberal hypocrisy. I think, but call me picky, that it looks incompetent to call an action that backfired on a conservative prime minister, a liberal hypocrisy. I would suggest that each editor sign his fun fact, such that it would be at least obvious that the incompetence doesn't lie with CP in general, but with a particular editor. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:Such as yourself, for instance? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:11, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::For example. I don't want people to think that I read the entry, and didn't notice what it is obviously wrong. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:22 (AET)
:::In your opinion, of course. What you have obviously overlooked is the fact that libs love the Kyoto Treaty, and didn't raise much of a fuss here in this country when that ship was refused entry into harbor by Spain (a Kyoto signatory), to sink in the deep ocean whereby it spilled its entire cargo of oil to foul all the Atlantic coastal beaches on the Iberian Penninsula.
:::I personaly seen libs rant and whine about pollution and how we need to clean up our act, and these same libs don't seem to mind much when they pollute themselves with their cars, their cigarette butts, their chewing gum wrappers, their foul mouths, and I bet you're one of them. Don't come here and start correcting us for what we write when you do it yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:18, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
: No, not in my opinion. It is most peoples opinion that Aznar was conservative politician, and in addition the Prime Minister of Spain, and not some Liberal. And the Kyoto treaty still doesn't have anything to do with oil pollution. And comments on my personal hygiene doesn't make your position stronger. But I guess you did it in the heat of the moment, and wouldn't mind to apologize for this verbal slip. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 14:30
::Personal hygene means you have a problem with showering, clean clothes, and an overall smell about your person, something which I didn't cite and have no need to apologize for. The others I mentioned are personal habits which you may have at least one of...and even then I have no reason to apologize. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: No need to be all defensive, a simple apology would have been sufficient. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 20:55
::Excuse me, Mr Order. You came to this site knowing it was a conservative site, and have every intention of pushing your liberal views on it. It is you who needs to apologize for that, and you will. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: What liberal views? Sorry for pointing out that an action by the Aznar government that backfired on his government isn't a liberal hypocrisy. Pointing this out isn't liberal. And your insistence to stick to this story isn't conservative either. It isn't even advancing the conservative cause, to the contrary. Nor are personal insults. But, since you changed your tone, I will take it as an apology. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 22:25

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. [[User:Order]]
:What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. [[User:Order]]

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. [[User:Order]]

:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like '''politics''', not hypocrisy. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall '''and''' have consumption drop by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. [[User:Order]]

Seems like I can make mistakes too. According to Chart the tax was increased by 7ct (not percent). Sorry for this mistake. It is currently 20ct in Tennessee. So, lets then assume that it was 13ct before the tax increase, and 20 ct after. This means an increase in tax of about 53%, which means that you make a windfall if consumption drops up to 35%. [[User:Order]]

== Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in Mass. ==

I think something should be added to the article about global warmist Ted Kennedy's opposition to putting wind farms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Even though it's one of the best sites for wind generation on the entire east coast, he opposes it because it might affect the view from his mansion. Total liberal hypocrisy. He only supports renewable energy if he doesn't have to see it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:"Ted Kennedy" is not someone who comes to mind when one thinks of Global Warming activists or promoters. He may lean left on environmental issues, but he is definitely not a majro leader in the movement. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Try again. [http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=189&article=1397]--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's a little weak. I don't think NIMBY is really an example of hypocrisy, it's an example of self interest overriding community interest. As I said [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal_hypocrisy#Couple_of_points.2Fcomments before] (which seems to have been largely ignored :/) there are ''many'' examples of liberal hipocrisy, but you need to pick strong ones or you set yourself up for failure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term. ==

I have to take issue with the statement "Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

I took the time to look up "acting" on Merriam-Webster online, and came across the definition "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras". So I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a ''character'' (who is ''not'' real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, that's the only reason I looked at this page. Seems really... Well, it seems like somebody's been grasping at straws. Edit: Same thing for Wahlberg. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:54, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a cop in the movies can go around condemning them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a soldier in the movies can spit on them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that the anti-gun nut who thinks the average law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be owning a gun to defend himself from a criminal, yet the same anti-gun nut thinks it's ok for himself to play that law-abiding gun-owning American in a movie defending himself from a criminal. Sound's like you're upset that this bit of liberal hypocrisy is broadcast for the world to see. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:11, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Deleting other people's comments is not cool.
::: 2. How? Is it also hypocritical for someone who plays a mad scientist bent on destroying the world in a movie to condemn that sort of thing in reality? They're freaking ACTORS! They don't '''have''' to agree with what their characters do, they just have to make them do it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, they are actors in a movie, they play parts in a movies, but just as I refuse to accept medical advice from an actor who plays a doctor on TV, I will never listen to the anti-gun Clooneys or Wahlbergs as they try to take my guns away from me while they play the hero with them on film. Get it through your head. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, and pushing your own liberalness on this website is not cool. You will respect CP. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: I never claimed that you should take medical advice from, let's say, Hugh Laurie, but you seem to be slamming the use of guns to heroic ends if the person portraying that character does not believe that the average citizen should be "packing heat." If they played a character who didn't use guns, would you support their opinion more then? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:27, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::: And I'm fine with your disagreement of my personal beliefs, but you're acting awfully hostile about the whole issue... And I sincerely hope that by CP, you mean conservapedia. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You are the one who's hostile to this subject and this website. If you do not like conservapedia or conservatism or Christianity, then you should leave. This discussion between you and me is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:31, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I have never, on this website, claimed to be hostile to any of these things. I'd appreciate it, sir or madam, if you'd not attempt to misrepresent me. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:33, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But you can misrepresent me as you did above? Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Alright, let me rephrase what I said. In my non-expert [[opinion]] you seem to be acting rather [[hostile]] towards me on [[Liberal hypocrisy|this issue]]. I'm sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*<s>Kazmaru, since you (falsely) claimed on your user page I had blocked you, I have protected your honor and turned your public lie into truth.</s> --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Kazmaru, I apologize! The block log showed no previous block for you! I have removed your block, and restored your pages. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

**No hard feelings, TK. We're all only human. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, Thank God! So long as we don't become [[deceit|(sub)Human]], all is good! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:18, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

''Hoji said''
*I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical'', and quoted
*"scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."
Ok, so Clooney is a [[capitalist]] pig who exploited America's love affair with the Second Amendment for personal profit and then criticizes our God-given freedoms to pursue happiness and own a gun. That's not hypocritical? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*To be fair, Rob, it is no more hypocritical than Michael Moore owning Haliburton stock, and keeping his money off-shore to avoid paying a rich man's taxes that would go to help all those without medical care! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

==Couric==
I already mentioned this once elsewhere, but now that the idiocy has premeated to other pages I feel I should mention it again. The Couric quote is ridiculous. First of all, while Couric may be liberal, I don't see how commenting on how gas prices are at historic highs is a liberal comment. Nor do I really see any hypocrisy. As for the "I need a loan," is it possible, just ''possible'' that she ''might'' have been exaggerating? Leaving that quote there just might it seem like CP is full of idiots who can't comprehend that not every statement is meant to be taken literally. It's grasping at straws. If someone says "I exercise all the time", maybe that should be included too, as clearly all humans must sleep, therefore that person clearly exercises less than 100% of the time, making that person [[deceit|deceitful]], and, I suppose, a hypocrite. There are a few good examples on this page (the O'Donnell one, for example), but far too many poor ones. And the Couric one has to be the worst. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:22, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-14T13:22:14Z

PortlyMort: /* Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term. */

== This should be merged ==

Someone should move the actors "hypocrisy" to after the politicians. While the use of guns in a movie does illustrate their hypocrisy by the implication that they condone such behavior by playing a part. There are better "real life" arguments to be made, and a person reading this may see this comparison as follish and not read on.

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[Carbon offsetting]] is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost ''always'' used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
::::::I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''"It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"''
*It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'}}
*[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read ''Climate of Hunger''), but he hasn't published any new work in '''two decades.''' Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

::::So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

::::Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

:::::The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the ''exact same talking points'' in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

:::::I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::In carrying forward this ''reductio ad absurdum,'' let's examine this claim,
::::::*''kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune''
::::::Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. [[User:Order]] 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|certain]] actor wind up as POTUS. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone ''"deserves the death penalty"'' for writing a piece that he disagrees with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Am I to take it you've not heard of ''hyperbole''? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" '''(another thing in the same "not in reality category")''', "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please! ==

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Kyoto and Spain ==

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. [[User:Order]]

*Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? [[User:Order]]

Since nobody was able to explain what the 'hypocrisy', nor why it concerns a Liberal, I removed the the corresponding bit. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 18:15

Why is the article blocked? [[User:Order]] 3 august. :30 (AET)
:So you couldn't remove the corresponding bit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I couldn't. It doesn't matter too much, because the quality of most entries isn't that great either. An entry on something that backfired isn't hypocrisy, and if it then done a conservative government, it isn't exactly liberal either, but as I said somewhere else, this entire list is for entertainment only. Sure, a real encyclopedia would include such poor work, but I guess it is for the sysops to decide if they want to be foremost entertaining. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:If it's for entertainment only, why are you and others so desperate to change it? Could it be that you can't stand it when liberal hypocrisy is exposed, and you instead palm it off as mere entertainment? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::I am not desperate to change it. I would however advise to have everybody sign their fun fact on liberal hypocrisy. I think, but call me picky, that it looks incompetent to call an action that backfired on a conservative prime minister, a liberal hypocrisy. I would suggest that each editor sign his fun fact, such that it would be at least obvious that the incompetence doesn't lie with CP in general, but with a particular editor. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:Such as yourself, for instance? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:11, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::For example. I don't want people to think that I read the entry, and didn't notice what it is obviously wrong. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:22 (AET)
:::In your opinion, of course. What you have obviously overlooked is the fact that libs love the Kyoto Treaty, and didn't raise much of a fuss here in this country when that ship was refused entry into harbor by Spain (a Kyoto signatory), to sink in the deep ocean whereby it spilled its entire cargo of oil to foul all the Atlantic coastal beaches on the Iberian Penninsula.
:::I personaly seen libs rant and whine about pollution and how we need to clean up our act, and these same libs don't seem to mind much when they pollute themselves with their cars, their cigarette butts, their chewing gum wrappers, their foul mouths, and I bet you're one of them. Don't come here and start correcting us for what we write when you do it yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:18, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
: No, not in my opinion. It is most peoples opinion that Aznar was conservative politician, and in addition the Prime Minister of Spain, and not some Liberal. And the Kyoto treaty still doesn't have anything to do with oil pollution. And comments on my personal hygiene doesn't make your position stronger. But I guess you did it in the heat of the moment, and wouldn't mind to apologize for this verbal slip. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 14:30
::Personal hygene means you have a problem with showering, clean clothes, and an overall smell about your person, something which I didn't cite and have no need to apologize for. The others I mentioned are personal habits which you may have at least one of...and even then I have no reason to apologize. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: No need to be all defensive, a simple apology would have been sufficient. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 20:55
::Excuse me, Mr Order. You came to this site knowing it was a conservative site, and have every intention of pushing your liberal views on it. It is you who needs to apologize for that, and you will. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: What liberal views? Sorry for pointing out that an action by the Aznar government that backfired on his government isn't a liberal hypocrisy. Pointing this out isn't liberal. And your insistence to stick to this story isn't conservative either. It isn't even advancing the conservative cause, to the contrary. Nor are personal insults. But, since you changed your tone, I will take it as an apology. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 22:25

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. [[User:Order]]
:What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. [[User:Order]]

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. [[User:Order]]

:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like '''politics''', not hypocrisy. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall '''and''' have consumption drop by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. [[User:Order]]

Seems like I can make mistakes too. According to Chart the tax was increased by 7ct (not percent). Sorry for this mistake. It is currently 20ct in Tennessee. So, lets then assume that it was 13ct before the tax increase, and 20 ct after. This means an increase in tax of about 53%, which means that you make a windfall if consumption drops up to 35%. [[User:Order]]

== Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in Mass. ==

I think something should be added to the article about global warmist Ted Kennedy's opposition to putting wind farms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Even though it's one of the best sites for wind generation on the entire east coast, he opposes it because it might affect the view from his mansion. Total liberal hypocrisy. He only supports renewable energy if he doesn't have to see it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:"Ted Kennedy" is not someone who comes to mind when one thinks of Global Warming activists or promoters. He may lean left on environmental issues, but he is definitely not a majro leader in the movement. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Try again. [http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=189&article=1397]--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's a little weak. I don't think NIMBY is really an example of hypocrisy, it's an example of self interest overriding community interest. As I said [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal_hypocrisy#Couple_of_points.2Fcomments before] (which seems to have been largely ignored :/) there are ''many'' examples of liberal hipocrisy, but you need to pick strong ones or you set yourself up for failure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term. ==

I have to take issue with the statement "Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

I took the time to look up "acting" on Merriam-Webster online, and came across the definition "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras". So I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a ''character'' (who is ''not'' real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, that's the only reason I looked at this page. Seems really... Well, it seems like somebody's been grasping at straws. Edit: Same thing for Wahlberg. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:54, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a cop in the movies can go around condemning them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a soldier in the movies can spit on them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that the anti-gun nut who thinks the average law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be owning a gun to defend himself from a criminal, yet the same anti-gun nut thinks it's ok for himself to play that law-abiding gun-owning American in a movie defending himself from a criminal. Sound's like you're upset that this bit of liberal hypocrisy is broadcast for the world to see. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:11, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Deleting other people's comments is not cool.
::: 2. How? Is it also hypocritical for someone who plays a mad scientist bent on destroying the world in a movie to condemn that sort of thing in reality? They're freaking ACTORS! They don't '''have''' to agree with what their characters do, they just have to make them do it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, they are actors in a movie, they play parts in a movies, but just as I refuse to accept medical advice from an actor who plays a doctor on TV, I will never listen to the anti-gun Clooneys or Wahlbergs as they try to take my guns away from me while they play the hero with them on film. Get it through your head. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, and pushing your own liberalness on this website is not cool. You will respect CP. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: I never claimed that you should take medical advice from, let's say, Hugh Laurie, but you seem to be slamming the use of guns to heroic ends if the person portraying that character does not believe that the average citizen should be "packing heat." If they played a character who didn't use guns, would you support their opinion more then? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:27, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::: And I'm fine with your disagreement of my personal beliefs, but you're acting awfully hostile about the whole issue... And I sincerely hope that by CP, you mean conservapedia. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You are the one who's hostile to this subject and this website. If you do not like conservapedia or conservatism or Christianity, then you should leave. This discussion between you and me is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:31, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I have never, on this website, claimed to be hostile to any of these things. I'd appreciate it, sir or madam, if you'd not attempt to misrepresent me. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:33, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But you can misrepresent me as you did above? Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Alright, let me rephrase what I said. In my non-expert [[opinion]] you seem to be acting rather [[hostile]] towards me on [[Liberal hypocrisy|this issue]]. I'm sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*<s>Kazmaru, since you (falsely) claimed on your user page I had blocked you, I have protected your honor and turned your public lie into truth.</s> --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Kazmaru, I apologize! The block log showed no previous block for you! I have removed your block, and restored your pages. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

**No hard feelings, TK. We're all only human. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, Thank God! So long as we don't become [[deceit|(sub)Human]], all is good! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:18, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

''Hoji said''
*I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical'', and quoted
*"scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."
Ok, so Clooney is a [[capitalist]] pig who exploited America's love affair with the Second Amendment for personal profit and then criticizes our God-given freedoms to pursue happiness and own a gun. That's not hypocritical? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*To be fair, Rob, it is no more hypocritical than Michael Moore owning Haliburton stock, and keeping his money off-shore to avoid paying a rich man's taxes that would go to help all those without medical care! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

==Couric==
I already mentioned this once elsewhere, but now that the idiocy has premeated to other pages I feel I should mention it again. The Couric quote is ridiculous. First of all, while Couric may be liberal, I don't see how commenting on how gas prices are at historic highs is a liberal comment. Nor do I really see any hypocrisy. As for the "I need a loan," is it possible, just ''possible'' that she ''might'' have been exaggerating? Leaving that quote there just might it seem like CP is full of idiots who can't comprehend that not every statement is meant to be taken literally. It's grasping at straws. If someone says "I exercise all the time", maybe that should be included too, as clearly all humans must sleep, therefore that person clearly exercises less than 100% of the time, making that person [[deciet|decietful]], and, I suppose, a hypocrite. There are a few good examples on this page (the O'Donnell one, for example), but far too many poor ones. And the Couric one has to be the worst. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:22, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

World History Lecture Ten

2007-08-14T13:01:44Z

PortlyMort: minor correction

World History – Post-Industrial Revolution, Imperialism and World War I
 Tenth Lecture
 Instructor, Andy Schlafly

== Introduction ==

After the industrial revolution, many European nations extended their power through “imperialism”, which means one nation trying to control other people. Imperialism makes the bigger nation feel more powerful and more influential. It can also be very profitable for the imperialistic nation as it exploits the natural resources and labor of the other people. But subjugated people began to resent rule by another nation, and imperialism became a huge problem worldwide.

Prior to the 1800s, strongly independent nations had not yet arisen in continental Europe. The Holy Roman Empire held much power until the Reformation in the 1500s, and even afterwards. The Hapsburg ruling family was a powerful ruling dynasty throughout Europe, especially in Austria where it ruled from 1278 to 1918. This family served as Kings of Germany for several centuries (until 1806), as Holy Roman Emperors, and as Kings of Croatia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and Bohemia. They even installed the Emperor of Mexico from 1864 to 1867!

But Napoleon conquered most of continental Europe in the early 1800s, and after his defeat other nations began to grow in power. France itself grew again in power under Napoleon III, who was the third son of a stepdaughter of Napoleon. After several unsuccessful attempts, Napoleon III finally seized power in France after the failed revolutions of 1848 swept Europe. Napoleon III became emperor of the French in 1852, and served for nearly twenty years until he foolishly fell for the bait of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to fight a war against the Prussians (Germans). The Prussians defeated Napoleon III and shipped him off to exile in England, and soon Bismarck formed the new nation of Germany. Ever since, Germany has been the leading power in continental Europe, rather than France.

The European nations grew bigger and stronger in the 1800s and early 1900s. These industrialized nations (Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and also the United States and Japan) sought natural resources and raw materials for their factories and new markets to sell their finished goods. In England and Germany, people who believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution felt a racial superiority and sought conquest (survival-of-the-fittest) to force other races into submission.

== Post-Industrial Revolution ==

Much changed due to the industrial revolution, and not all of the change was good. A debate arose over whether the government should regulate businesses that ran factories. Most of the economic thinkers in the 1800s were in England, where the industrial revolution initially occurred.

=== The British Thinkers ===

On one side of the debate were the “laissez-faire” economists who, like Adam Smith, wanted the government to stay out of business. They felt that the “invisible hand” would produce the best outcome, and that supply and demand would be far better at allocating resources to their best use than government regulation could.

Inspired by Adam Smith, classical economics is the economic theory emphasizing self-interest along with the operation of universal economic laws. For example, classical economics predicts full employment if the government does not interfere with minimum wage laws or other regulations. In addition to Adam Smith, leading proponents of classical economics included David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Jean Baptiste Say, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. They advocated “capitalism”, by which ownership of private property helps create profits for the owners and greater wealth for all of society.

David Ricardo (1772-1823), was a pessimistic British economist most famous for developing the theory of comparative advantage. He explained that it was advantageous for England to produce cloth and Portugal to produce wine even though Portugal might have produced both wine and cloth at a lower cost than England did, as long as there was free trade between the two countries. However, David Ricardo also proposed incorrect theories like the gloomy “iron law of wages,” which claimed that wages would never rise above the bare minimum necessary to sustain a worker. Opponents of Adam Smith and free enterprise used some of these incorrect theories later to argue for government regulation of business.

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was another British classical economist, but he was so pessimistic that he caused the entire field of economics to be called “the dismal science,” such that failure and collapse of the economy are supposed to be inevitable. Malthus insisted that population increases by the geometric ratio but that the means of subsistence only increases by the arithmetic ratio, and thus population will outgrow the food supply and many will die (unless a war kills them first!). This was completely false as even the poorest countries like India produce far more food than they can consume, and obesity is a bigger problem than hunger today.

The last of the English classical economists was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Homeschooled in an atheistic way by his father, Mill supported laissez-faire but with social reforms like redistribution of wealth, shorter working days, and regulation of monopolies. Today he would be called a “moderate conservative” due to his support of some government controls over the economy. Mill was ahead of his time in advocating the development of labor unions and farm cooperatives, and emancipation (voting) by women. He sympathized with the North in the American Civil War. In his book “On Liberty,” Mill advocated that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Mill also advocated utilitarianism, a concept previously proposed by the atheist Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Utilitarianism means that government should do whatever maximizes overall “utility” (benefits minus costs). If killing one innocent man saves ten other lives, then utilitarianism would favor it. Under utilitarianism there is no Christian morality, and it is replaced by comparing benefits versus costs. Under this view government should experiment on embryonic stem cells today if benefits are greater than costs. Mill admitted that his longtime love for a particular woman, who was married to another man for many years, influenced his view of morality.

There were other new ideas during this time, not all of them good. There was “utopian socialism,” which English and French philosophers proposed. In England Robert Owen (1771-1858) was the leading proponent, while in France Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was the leader. They suggested the creation of self-contained communities in which the government owned the instruments of production (e.g., land and money) and politics was run by a voluntary, democratic process. The notion of “socialism” for everyone, not just self-contained communities, also developed as a so-called reform of capitalism. Under socialism, government owns or controls many factors of production, including business property and money, and also controls the distribution of goods. The invisible hand is replaced by government control, supposedly for the common good. Workers are able to keep what they make as needed to survive.

German thinkers named Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were about to move to England, promoted the radical idea that all private property should be eliminated and that society would be better off under “communism”. Karl Marx published these ideas in 1848 in a booklet called “The Communist Manifesto.” “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class [economic] struggles,” Marx declared in that book. Later he developed a motto for communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx predicted that the proletariat (working class) would overthrow the wealthy in a capitalistic society, and then establish a new system that would be socialism in its early stage and pure communism in its later stage.

Another Englishman, Charles Darwin (1809-1882), was destined to be credited with developing the theory of evolution, although a few others had proposed the idea before him. Darwin’s own family considered him to be a disgrace even before he failed at an attempt to become a doctor. His father later sought for him to become an Anglican parson (pastor), but Darwin abandoned the Christian faith instead. He could not even earn a degree in science and he struggled in scientific subjects such as physics (and math). But after collecting some plant and animal specimens on a voyage (on the H.M.S. Beagle ship) around the world, in 1859 Darwin published a radical (and racist) book entitled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” It proposed that species had evolved into complex forms of life over millions of years through “natural selection.” Darwin had not observed any transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species), and no credible transitional forms have ever been found.
The greatest scientists and mathematicians, from Louis Pasteur to Bernhard Riemann, viewed Darwin’s theory as absurd. The French described Darwin’s theory as “a fairy tale for grown-ups.” Darwin’s explanation for an evolution of the whale (a mammal) was that it somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open. No one can reconcile Darwin’s theory with the evidence of a huge flood, or the fact that all mutations are harmful, or the observation that species have been going extinct rather than being generated, or the fact that all unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time. Today Darwin’s theory is most popular among people who, like Darwin himself, have some superficial education in science without any depth of study or insight. Darwin’s theory is particularly silly to those who appreciate the vast beauty in the world, as Darwin’s theory is based only on functionality, without any place for artistic design.

It was for political reasons that Darwin’s theory, aided by frauds like the Piltdown Man, crept into schools in England, Germany and the United States. As a fellow Englishman, Darwin is promoted heavily in England and even buried next to Isaac Newton. Germany also promoted the theory of evolution heavily until the Darwinists engaged in racial cleansing and experimentation to “perfect” the Aryan race under Adolf Hitler. In the United States, evolution has been taught in public schools for nearly 100 years, yet 90% of Americans continue to reject the theory as it is being taught.

The link between Darwinism, atheism and politics was strong in the late 1800s and even stronger today. Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term “social Darwinism” to apply a barbaric survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less “fit” persons should die or simply be killed like weak animals. Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans.

Today, there is a strong correlation between belief in evolution and belief in a controlling government. England was the strongest nation in the world at the time of Darwin, but its embrace of forms of socialism weakened it dramatically. The United States, where the vast majority has always rejected Darwinism, rose from being a relatively weak country at the time of Darwin to becoming by far the strongest nation today.

=== Social Reform===

Labor unions arose in the late 1800s, as John Stuart Mill suggested, in order to combat a perceived exploitation of workers. “Collective bargaining” between workers (the “collective” side) and their opponents, the owners, became popular and continues to exist today. It was the method of collective bargaining in the late 1900s that helped enable American baseball players to increase their salaries to astronomical levels. Collective bargaining usually works like this: raise our salaries or the workers will go on strike. Several times baseball players made good on their threat, and went out on strike. Brutal strikes by auto workers in Detroit in the 1970s for higher wages had a huge effect on the competitiveness of the auto industry there.

Other so-called reforms in the late 1800s included “free” public education in Western Europe, Japan and the United States; rehabilitation for prisoners; and child labor laws to control working conditions for children. Earlier the abolition movement, which was motivated mostly by Christianity rather than by non-Christian reform movements, wiped out slavery and slave trade in much of the world by 1888.

In 1848, women suffragettes (supporters of the right to vote for women) met in Seneca Falls, New York, where they issued their own version of the Declaration of Independence called the “Declaration of Sentiments.” Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott of the United States and the British Emmeline Pankhurst protested for suffrage. Britain and the United States gave the right to vote to all women shortly after World War I.

=== Growth in Democracy===

The industrial revolution led to the growth of cities, which in turn led to demands for greater amounts of democracy or “suffrage” (rights to vote). In England the right to vote was limited to those who owned property until Parliament reduced these restrictions with the Reform Bill of 1832. That reform also eliminated “rotten boroughs,” in which relatively few residents had the power to elect a representative with the same vote as much bigger districts. Parliament then redistricted the cities to reflect their growing populations.

By 1838 the Chartist movement demanded that Parliament extend suffrage to all men based on the secret ballot. The Chartist movement also sought annual elections for Parliament, salaries for its members (so that the middle class could afford to serve), and the elimination of property requirements as a condition for belonging to Parliament. But Parliament did not enact these reforms until 1900.

Gradually the power of the monarchy in England was reduced to that of figurehead, which is all it is today. Parliament increased in power, and much of that power went to the elected lower house (the House of Commons) rather than the upper, unelected House of Lords.

Democracy came much later to other European countries. The great potato famine of the 1840s killed many in Ireland and caused many more to immigrate to the United States. But Ireland was ruled by Britain then, and would not obtain any substantial level of self-government until the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. Many in Ireland and many Americans of Irish descent blame British leaders for allowing that horrific potato famine to happen, and without home rule there was little the Irish people could do to stop it.

Canada achieved effective independence (as a Dominion within the British Empire)in 1867, and even then it remained within the British empire (Newfoundland remained a British territory and did not join Canada until 1949). Australia, which was settled by prisoners from England, did not obtain self-rule for its separate colonies until the 1850s; it obtained independence as a united Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. New Zealand also won self-rule in the 1850s and Dominion status (effective independence) in 1907. In France its Third Republic ruled from 1875 until the German Occupation in 1940.

=== Technology and Science ===

Capitalism unleashed a burst of creative activity in science and technology. Beginning in the 1870s, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, motion pictures and, even though he was mostly deaf, the phonograph. In 1895 Guglielmo Marconi invented the radio. Henry Ford perfected the assembly line and manufactured the first automobiles in the early 1900s. Wilbur and Orville Wright flew the first gasoline-powered airplane in 1903.

Scientific and mathematical discoveries were equally marvelous. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), the greatest experimental scientist who ever lived, discovered how to kill bacteria in milk and in all liquids through pasteurization. He also developed a rabies vaccine, first using it in response to a mother who begged him to save her young son, who had been just bitten by a rabid animal. Pasteur did save her son’s life with his new vaccine. Perhaps greatest of all was Pasteur’s discovery of the germ theory of disease, which more than anything has reduced illness and the spread of disease. Pasteur explained that diseases are transmitted through germs. Had people known this when the Black Death (bubonic plague) hit the world, far fewer would have died.

Pasteur was a devout Christian, and did not see any conflict between science and Christianity, remarking that “science brings men nearer to God.” Pasteur experienced many hardships throughout his life, including the death of three of his five children to childhood diseases, but these hardships only served to strengthen his faith and his determination to find cures. Through it all Pasteur gave God the glory, stating that “the more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Another devout Christian was the brilliant mathematician Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866), who was perhaps second only to the Greek Archimedes as the greatest mathematician of all time. When Riemann was sent as a teenager to an advanced German school, he quickly became bored with his math class. He went to the principal and requested more advanced material, whereupon the principal gave him the lengthy and most advanced math book known. Riemann returned in a just few days declaring, “I have mastered it!” He went on to create a new type of geometry that became useful in the next century, and he formulated the most famous unsolved hypothesis that remains in mathematics today.

Marie Curie, a brilliant female Polish scientist who moved to Paris, discovered radioactivity along with her less talented husband Pierre. Dmitri Mendeleev, a Russian chemist, put together the periodic table of elements that is still taught today. British physician Joseph Lister applied Pasteur’s germ theory of disease and implemented an antibacterial cleaning technique for hospital tools and facilities, greatly reducing the number of infections.

== Imperialism ==

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “imperialism” as “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.” www.m-w.com . More simply, imperialism is one nation trying to control another nation or people. Examples include Spanish imperialism towards Mexico and perhaps American imperialism towards the Philippines.

The motivations for imperialism were obvious: power and money. Every ruler dreams of an empire, and imperialism meant more territory to wield power over. Every ruler wants to be like Caesar or Napoleon. There were financial incentives for imperialism also. Industrial Europe needed raw materials to use in manufacturing, and also wanted customers to sell their finished products to. Colonies gave the mother countries both the raw materials at the beginning of the industrial process and new markets for selling the products at the end of the process.

In general, there were four patterns that Europeans used in their imperialism:

1. Establish colonies, like the British colonies in America, whereby the European power had direct influence or control over the colonies.

2. Establish protectorates, whereby the region has its own government and is an independent country, but is protected by a larger country. Puerto Rico and Guam today would be an example of that, as they are protected by the United States.

3. An even less direct form of imperialism was “spheres of influence,” in which the European country had special trading privileges over the region.

4. Finally, there was “economic imperialism,” whereby the outside influence was exerted not by a country but by a private business over a region.

=== Africa ===

Perhaps the roots of European imperialism date back as early as 1492, when Columbus discovered the New World and Spain soon sent conquistadors. But in the 1800s European imperialism began to focus in particular on Africa, for the following reasons.

The invention of the steam engine encouraged Europeans to explore the interior of the African continent, and cables and railroads facilitated communications and transportation as well.

Africa was an easy and attractive target for the Europeans. It was easy because Europeans had better weapons and could easily defeat African tribes, who were divided among themselves. The many different ethnic groups and languages spoken in Africa also made it difficult for the continent to unify and defend itself. Meanwhile, Africa was attractive because it had a profitable slave trade, and the rivalries created by the slave trade made it easier for European countries to divide and conquer.

Malaria was historically a problem in Africa (and still is today), but the antidote “quinine” was discovered that immunized Europeans against contracting it.

Aided by all of the above, the Scotsman explorer and missionary David Livingston explored central Africa in the late 1860s. He was searching for the source of the mighty Nile River. Because the Nile is unusual in flowing south-to-north, its source could only be in central Africa in the vicinity of the Congo.

But Livingstone was gone for years without any communication. A news reporter from America, Henry Stanley, decided to travel to Africa to look for him. Upon finding a stranger who stuck out like a sore thumb in the middle of central Africa, Stanley uttered the famous line, “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?” Indeed, Stanley had found Livingstone alive and well, and Stanley later returned to Africa to sign treaties with chiefs near the Congo River. Belgium King Leopold II used these treaties to gain control for himself (not Belgium) over the region.

Leopold II exploited the region for personal profit, building large rubber plantations for the natives to work on. This destroyed the farming community and compelled the workers to toil for unreasonably low wages. The working conditions on these plantations were very harsh. Eventually an international outcry caused the Belgian government to take over the region, and rename it the Belgian Congo. But this also increased competition among European powers for African colonies.

France was another European power competing for control of the Congo, which contained valuable copper and tin deposits. Further to the south, in what is South Africa today, there were even richer gold and silver deposits. The European powers saw much wealth in Africa in the form of minerals and wanted this for themselves. They also wanted plantations that could produce rubber, palm oil and even cocoa (chocolate) for the European factories.

To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among themselves, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successfullly resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia were divided and taken by European nations.

One of Africa’s biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups. The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indian Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans.

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

=== Ottoman Empire ===

In the 1800s, the powerful Europeans and even the Russians took on the Islamic powers, most notably the Ottoman empire.

The Russians were the first in challenging the Ottoman empire in the Russian attempt to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea through the Black Sea. In 1853 the Russians fought the Ottoman empire in the Crimean War. The British and French fought on the side of the Ottomans, however, and they defeated the Russians. But the Russians gained alliances with Slavs in the Balkan area of the Ottoman empire, which weakened further. The Ottoman empire continued to lose territory in the Balkans and northern Africa, and was only a shell of its original power by the beginning of World War I. Western technology had far outpaced Muslim know-how.

Muslims in Egypt, led by Muhammad Ali (not the American boxer!) and his son, Isma’il, arranged for the French to build the Suez Canal to connect the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. The idea of the canal was originally Napoleon’s, but he was mistakenly told that the Red Sea had an elevation too much higher than the Mediterranean Sea to make it work. The canal opened in 1869 and the British became particularly dependent on it to avoid the long trip around the southern tip of Africa. The British took over control of the canal (and Egypt) in 1882, when Egypt failed to repay the debts it incurred to build it.

Britain argued with Russia over dominance in Persia (now Iran). In 1907 they divided that region after there were riots protesting the exporting of tobacco to Britain. When some gold was discovered in Persia in 1908, British influence increased.

=== China and Japan ===

China and Japan have always been very different from each other, and are longtime enemies. China has historically been a more philosophical and peaceful country, while Japan has traditionally been nationalistic and militaristic.

==== China ====

China deliberately isolated itself from the West, allowing only one port in southern China to conduct trade with Europe: Guangzhou. But the British learned that the Chinese people (like many people worldwide) became easily addicted to opium, a terrible drug that is illegal today. In the late 1700s the British took advantage of this addiction and began sending massive amounts of opium to China. At one point a Chinese government official wrote a letter to Queen Victoria begging her to stop this. In 1839 the Opium War broke out over this issue, but the British defeated the Chinese and the Treaty of Nanjing gave the British the key port of Hong Kong, which it held until just a few years ago. Another treaty in 1844 gave other western powers, including France, Germany, Russia and even the United States, extraterritorial or foreign rights to four additional ports, along with special exemptions from Chinese law.

The opium drug problem continued and in 1850 a Christian heretic named Hong Xiuquan led the Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) in order to rid the country of opium and establish a “Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace.” Declaring himself to be the second son of God and the younger brother of the Messiah, Hong conquered much of southeastern China, but lost it back to the Qing Empire in 1864. Historians estimate that 20 million were left dead from these conflicts, and consider this Rebellion to have been one of the most deadly in all of history.

Chinese leaders then called for a new educational system to prevent a repeat of these conflicts, by training young people not to engage in such rebellions. They also sought a modernization of the Chinese military. The Dowager Empress Cixi (1861-1908) started a modernization program that included gunboats and factory-made weapons. Foreigners operated these factories, and foreign influence increased.

In 1899 the United States, fearing further foreign influence in China, announced the Open Door Policy demanding that China’s ports be open to all foreign traders. European powers agreed and foreign contact increased further in China. A secret Chinese society known as the Boxers rebelled against Beijing, China’s main city, in 1900. The foreign powers joined forces to quash (put down) this Boxer Rebellion.

==== Japan ====

Japan was one of the imperialistic powers that eventually threatened China. Even though much smaller than China, Japan has a military culture that seemed invincible until the United States dropped two atom bombs on it in August 1945.

But Japan was similar to China in one respect: both were very suspicious of Europeans and both preferred isolation over European influence. In 1543, shipwrecked Portuguese sailors discovered Japan and they were welcomed. In 1549, some Japanese welcomed European Christian missionaries and liked the European technology that they brought to the island. European technology, especially firearms, helped the Tokugawa Shogunate unify Japan in 1603 and establish its capital at Edo (now Tokyo), and that family ruled Japan until 1868. European cannons easily punched through the castle walls of the daimyo or large Japanese landowners. In some areas fortified walls were built, which sheltered communities for artisans, merchants and government bureaucracy.

But by 1637, the spread of Christianity in Japan caused a retaliation and persecution of Christians. Japan then closed its doors to the West and kept only one port, Nagasaki (hit with an atom bomb in 1945), open for merchants from China and the Netherlands.

American Commodore Matthew Perry attempted to break the isolation of Japan by sailing into Edo (Tokyo) harbor in 1853. His trip was successful, causing the Treaty of Kanagawa to be signed in 1854 to allow the United States to use two ports and also to open an embassy. European nations then gained similar access by 1860.

Japan urbanized during the 1700s, causing families to leave farms and begin to work in cities, and some of the Japanese women worked in city jobs for the first time.

The Japanese ultimately revolted against the Tokugawa shogun, which abdicated power in November 1867. The cause was complaints about too much foreign influence. A new emperor Mutsuhito established the Meiji government in the spring of 1868, which lasted until 1912. During this Meiji period feudal lords gave their land back to the emperor, and Mutsuhito industrialized Japan, strengthened its national military, centralized its government and established universal public education. In the late 1800s the Japanese produced coal and built railroads and many factories. By the early 1900s Japan was a world power that could compete militarily and economically with the greatest nations in the world.

Japan first defeated China, which had invaded Korea in 1894. Japan beat the Chinese back, causing them to retreat from Korea and then Japan invaded and conquered Manchuria in the Sino-Japanese War. The peace treaty (signed in 1895) gave the Pescadores Islands and Taiwan to Japan.

Japan felt it was invincible. It next took on Russia and defeated it in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Japan destroyed the Russian fleet and received control of the southern portion of the Chinese Eastern Railway and a lease on the Liaodong Peninsula, including Port Arthur, in its Treaty of Portsmouth with Russia. Russia withdrew from Manchuria and promised to stay out of Korea.

There was even more to Japan’s aggression. It took over Korea and annexed it to Japan in 1910. This alarmed the rest of the world, making everyone wonder if and when Japan would stop expanding. Japan took over Korea’s schools and taught the children in a way that favored Japan. Japan also took over the presses (media) in Korea, thereby controlling what was said. Japan completely dominated Korea. Japan’s land policies favored Japanese settlers. An underground nationalist movement in Korea began to grow, with resentment towards Japan.

The story of Japan can be summed up in one sentence: Japan started out as a target of imperialism and ended up as one of the most imperialistic nations of all.

=== Latin America ===

“Latin America” includes all of the Americas south of the United States. Put another way, Latin America consists of the Spanish-speaking countries plus Brazil, which speaks Portuguese.

Prosperity did not come to Latin America when the people won their independence from European powers. Even after successful revolutions, land ownership remained in the control of a very small group of people. Even today, in Mexico almost half of the nation’s wealth is owned by only 10% of its population, and 20% of the people earn too little to pay for a healthy diet. The country as a whole is not poor, it is just that the wealth is poorly distributed.

For hundreds of years, Latin Americans have accepted rule by an elite, and often corrupt, few. The revolutionary leaders ruled as caudillos (dictators). Eventually democracy took root, but a narrow few would still hold power no matter what the outcome of the voting was.

Few Latin American countries developed their own economies and banking after obtaining independence. Instead, they would import goods from the United States and Europe and take on large foreign debt that they would be unable to pay. Latin American countries did begin to export agriculture to the United States and Europe once the refrigerated car was invented in 1882, which kept the food from spoiling. The weather seasons are the opposite in South America from the United States, enabling us to purchase fresh fruit in the wintertime from South American countries such as Chile.

United States President James Monroe ended European imperialism in Latin America with his famous “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823, which demanded that Europe not colonize any more areas in the Western Hemisphere. Britain quickly agreed and the other European countries followed suit. Spain pulled out of its last remaining colonies (Cuba and Puerto Rico) in 1901, when the United States defeated it in the six-week-long Spanish-American War.

Some in Latin America complain about imperialism by the United States there. After the French unsuccessfully attempted in the 1880s to build a canal across the thin isthmus of Panama to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Americans were ready to apply our “can do” determination and innovation to the project. President Teddy Roosevelt rejected a demand by Colombia to sell the land to us, and waited until after Panama won its independence from Colombia. Panama then granted the United States a ten-mile-wide path across its country. The United States completed the Panama Canal in 1914 and it became an instant success for shipping.

Democratic President Jimmy Carter arranged for the United States to agree to give the canal back to Panama, even though Americans paid for its construction, beginning in 1979 and culminating in 1999. President Carter claimed the canal was part of improper imperialism or colonization by the United States in Latin America. In New Jersey, a Republican Senator who favored the give-back treaty was defeated in his own primary for reelection, reflecting enormous public disapproval of the treaty. Today Panama allows communist China to run the canal, making many wonder if the United States would even be able to use it in wartime.

The Monroe Doctrine has an important corollary today, known as the Roosevelt Corollary, announced by the aggressive President Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Under the Roosevelt Corollary the United States may intervene in and occupy any country in Latin America to protect interests of the United States. Communism remains a threat to the United States in the Latin American countries of Cuba and Venezuela, and very recently the president of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) called President Bush the “devil” in a speech given before the United Nations. In December 2006, Chavez then won reelection in Venezuela by a 61-38% margin (based on early election returns), and promised more socialism for that country and perhaps others in the region.

=== India ===

In India, the story is of British imperialism followed by Indian nationalism and independence. Beginning as early as the 1600s, the British established trading posts in India. When the Mughal empire weakened in the 1700s, British influence (especially the East India Company) became more influential. By the early 1800s British dominance over the subcontinent was immense. The British imposed rules that limited the internal operations of the Indian economy, and the British decimated the local Indian industry in handmade textiles by flooding the market with cheap manufactured clothing from Britain. A famine resulted when the British displaced many farmers in India through economic changes similar to what happened in Africa, with cash-crop and big business plantation techniques destroying small farms.

When the Civil War broke out in America, and the South expected Britain to intervene on its side in order to protect the production of cotton, Britain turned to Indian cotton instead. Britain also benefited from many other forms of agriculture or raw materials from India: indigo, coffee, tea, jute and even opium (now an illegal drug). The British would profit by selling the opium to the Chinese, which caused addiction and severe problems for China.

To be fair, the British also made many improvements in India, building roads, railroads, hospitals, schools, and improving the overall infrastructure and sanitation. The British also brought Christianity to India, which causes some resentment and had only limited success in converting Indians from Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, all of which remain more popular than Christianity there. But certainly the British improved India immensely.

Demands for independence in India began as early as 1857, when Indian soldiers (“sepoys”) acquired new cartridge-based rifles. Soldiers were instructed to bite off the cartridge seals before loading the cartridges into the rifles and firing them. But then a rumor spread that the cartridges were sealed with beef fat (prohibited by Hinduism) and pork fat (prohibited by Islam). Many were angered by this rumor, and in the Sepoy Rebellion or Sepoy Mutiny, Indians revolted against the British in northern India. The British suppressed it and continued to rule India directly as part of a 200-year period known as the Raj (1757-1947).

There were peaceful calls for independence for India dating back to the early 1800s. Educated leaders such as Ram Mohun Roy sought an end to the caste system and the practice of sati by widows who would throw themselves on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands. The British did prohibit sati and it is debatable how widespread that practice really was. In the late 1800s, a nationalist group called the Indian National Congress formed to demand independence, and in the early 1900s the Muslim League made similar demands.

But all attempts at independence for India failed throughout the 1800s because of religious divisions. The Hindus and Muslims could never agree, and the Sikhs, a military offshoot of the Hindus that resisted Islam, remained loyal to the British.

=== Southeast Asia ===

As trade expanded beyond Africa and India to Southeast Asia, so did imperialism. Britain established a trading post and supply station at Singapore, the French acquired influence over Indochina, the Dutch grabbed Indonesia, and the Germans dominated New Guinea, the Marshalls, and the Solomons. The United States even got into this game, as it acquired the Philippines and Hawaiian Islands. The only country that successfully resisted western imperialism was Siam, which is now Thailand. It was respected as a buffer zone between the British colony of Burma and the French colony of Indochina. In a sense that gave Siam the best of both worlds: it enjoyed western advances in technology (hospitals, railroads, communications, etc.) while retaining its own culture.

The story of French imperialism in Southeast Asia is simple: since the 1800s France has dominated several countries, including Vietnam, known as French Indochina. Rubber and rice were the key crops for France, and the harvesting and exporting of these crops caused Vietnamese to resent the French. In the mid-1900s, communists in Vietnam overthrew French influence and forced the United States to pull out of the country also.

The Dutch had influence over Indonesia beginning in the 1600s, enjoying full dominance by the 1800s over this region, calling it the Dutch East Indies. The Dutch harvested rubber and extracted tin and oil from the area. Many Dutch immigrated to the region and worked in trading posts and managed plantations.

The British, meanwhile, took control of the port of Malaysia, Burma and the port of Singapore near the Malay Peninsula. This region had a surplus of rubber, teak and tin. The British attracted many Chinese immigrants to this region, who eventually outnumbered the native Malay people and conflict with them to this day.

The United States engaged in some imperialism of its own around 1900 in acquiring the Philippines (and also Puerto Rico and Guam) from Spain as a result of the Spanish-American War. Separately, the United States also picked up Hawaii (also spelled as Hawai’i), even making it a state after World War II.

In 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo led an intense rebellion against the United States in order to establish independence for the Philippines (the “Filipinos”). The insurgents were brutal and unrelenting in their tactics and the American commanders concluded that they simply had to kill them all to suppress the rebellion, which the Americans did, causing some criticism back in the United States. But the Philippines are probably a free and Christian nation today as a result of that decision not to let the insurgents take control of it.

American businesses did exploit the Philippines, displacing farms with large sugar plantations. But Americans also vastly improved the island. Decades later the United States granted the Philippines its full independence.

American businesses also set up sugar plantations in Hawaii. They demanded that Hawaii be annexed to the United States so that the businesses could avoid paying high tariffs on sugar imports. In 1893 Queen Liliuokalani, a native Hawaiian, attempted to increase the political power of herself and the natives at the expense of the Americans on the island, but the American businesses overthrew her and in 1898 Hawaii was annexed to the United States as a territory. It became our 50th state in 1959. An interesting bit of trivia is that one spot in Hawaii has the most rainfall in the entire United States (460 inches of rain per year, or an average of more than one inch of rain per day).

== Early Modern Period ==

We now enter the Modern era in world history: from 1900 to today. In this lecture we will cover from 1900 to World War I.

=== Rivalries in Europe ===

The relationship among European nations was strained and tense at the turn of the 20th century (1900). They had much to disagree about. The imperialism cause conflicts to arise. Economic competition intensified, and the quest for raw materials like gold, oil and agriculture heightened the tension.

Nationalism increased, whereby the countries of Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russian, France and Italy began to feel pride in themselves and dislike for the others. The balance of power that was set up after Napoleon was no longer effective. It seemed inevitable that a future Napoleon-like dictator would try to rule the world again.

Nations built up massive militaries, and bragged about them. Germany sought to have the largest navy to compete with Britain’s claim that it had the best navy. Rulers found it popular to have a huge standing army that could be mobilized at any time.

In sum, there were three causes of increased rivalries among European nations: nationalism, militarism and imperialism. Remember those three causes of problems.

=== The Problem with Alliances ===

You may recall that European nations entered into many alliances beginning as early as the fall of Napoleon (the “Concert of Europe” established at the Congress of Vienna).

But later suspicions caused new alliances, some of them secret. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck entered into the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879 as a way of protecting those countries against possible aggression by France. Italy joined this alliance against France in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance.

Bismarck was a very skilled statesman and diplomat, and was one of the most influential in European history. He is credited with unifying Germany as a nation in the 1860s (ironically, while the United States was torn by the Civil War). Bismarck even arranged for wars against Denmark, then Austria and finally France to help unify the Germans. Unified as a nation in 1871, Germany made Bismarck its first Chancellor, whereupon he consolidated Germany’s power in Europe by entering into the above alliances with other countries. He was eventually forced to resign in 1890 after having a policy dispute with Wilhelm II, who as the “Kaiser” or Caesar of Germany wanted more power for himself.

Kaiser Wilhelm II immediately ended Germany’s alliance with Russia, causing it to form an alliance with France in 1891. In 1907 Great Britain, feeling threatened by Germany’s growing navy, joined France and Russia in their alliance, or entente, and this became the Triple Entente. Britain was not expressly required to defend France and Russia, but it promised not to fight against them.

Therefore one powerful group of three nations (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary), known as the Triple Alliance, stood against another powerful group of three nations (Britain, France and Russia), known as the Triple Entente. It was like one football team standing on a field opposite another football team, with both teams fully suited up. It doesn’t take much for someone to shout, “let’s play,” and the battle will begin.

== World War I Begins ==

Within ten years of the formation of those alliances, something did ignite a war. And what a devastating war it was. Never before in the history of the world was a war fought in such a deadly manner. With Christians on both sides, one might wonder how this could have happened. But this was long past the feudal times when fighting stopped on every Christian holiday. By 1914, leaders in both Germany on one side and Britain on the other had embraced concepts of survival-of-the-fittest, and many educated people felt that war was an essential part of the improvement of the human race. Let the stronger race win, according to this theory.

=== What Ignited the War ===

The Balkans in Eastern Europe was where the war began. The Ottoman empire had declined, leaving a power vacuum that European nations tried to fill. The Slavs in Serbia, with Russian support, wanted to unite all the Slavs in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary, which has a very small Slavic population, opposed this. Instead, Austria-Hungary wanted to control the Balkans rather than Russia.

In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia (and Herzogovina), a region adjacent to its southeast (and east of Italy across the Adriatic Sea). But Bosnia was mostly Slavic while Austria was not, and this greatly angered the Slavic Serbia, which wanted to take Bosnia back. Why did Austria act at this particular time? Because there was a rebellion by the Committee of Union and Progress (the so-called “Young Turks”) that overthrew the Ottoman government at that time, and the foreign minister Baron Aloys von Aerenthal saw a rare opportunity to act. Russia, which was Austria’s main adversary, was weakened by its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and by an internal revolution in 1905.
In January 1909, the chief of staff of the Austrian army approached his German counterpart and asked what Germany would do if Austria next invaded Serbia and caused Russia to intervene on behalf of Serbia. Despite the original defensive nature of the Austria-German alliance, the Germany army officer said Germany would back Austria and Germany would also invade France because it was Russia’s ally. This happened in the summer of 1914, as the struggle in the Balkans exploded into the First World War.

The War ignited on June 28, 1914, when the heir to the Austrian throne (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) was visiting the Bosnian capital city of Sarajevo along with his wife Sophie. It was an official visit, not a vacation, and crowds gathered to greet the couple. But a 19-year-old member of a youthful Bosnian resistance movement devoted to self-rule, Gavrilo Princip, shot the couple to death as they rode in an open automobile through the streets of Sarajevo. The killer was part of a large conspiracy and a bit earlier that day another member of the conspiracy had thrown a hand grenade at the Archduke. Princip was quickly captured and imprisoned, where he died of pneumonia a few years later.

Austria was obviously furious about the assassination and, with Germany’s support, demanded that Serbia end all resistance to Austria. Serbia agreed to some of the demands and offered to submit other demands to arbitration (decision) by an impartial international panel. But Austria would not wait and on July 28, 1914, it declared war against Serbia. Russian responded by mobilizing its army towards Austria and Germany.

This triggered the alliances. Germany responded to Russia’s mobilization of troops by declaring war on Russia four days later (on August 1st) and then Germany declared war on France another two days later (on August 3rd). Germany decided to invade and defeat France first before it had to fight Russia, and thereby avoid fighting a war on two fronts at the same time. This was the Schlieffen Plan to avoid a two-front war.

But Belgium, which was neutral, would not allow Germany to pass through its borders to invade France. So Germany invaded and defeated Belgium. Britain had a relationship with Belgium and Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914.

In a mere week a small dispute between Austria and Serbia over an assassination escalated into a world war between Britain, France and Russia (Allied Powers) and Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers). Italy left the German side when it invaded the neutral Belgium, and Italy eventually joined the Allied Powers along with Japan. The Ottoman empire and Bulgaria eventually joined the Central Powers.

=== Initial Stages of the War ===

The fighting in the “Great War,” as it was called then (it is now called World War I), was savage and brutal. Army casualties totaled more than 37 million people, and there were another 10 million in civilian deaths. For weeks armies would be in trenches opposite each other, spending day after day trying to kill their opponents in the opposite trench. This was known as trench warfare. Movement of ten or twenty feet in advance of a trench was a big success. Barbed wire marked off an area known as “no man’s land” between the two trenches, where any visitor would be shot on sight. Also, a deadly flu virus spread among the soldiers and infected the world, killing a huge number.

At the end of the war the peace agreement caused another great war to occur (World War II). So this World War I was bad news all around. In terms of military strategy, it is not terribly interesting either. The first year and a half (1914-15) is known as “Entrenchment”. The next year, 1916, is known as “Continued Stalemate”. Get the idea? The following year, 1917, is known for the entrance by the United States and the withdrawal by Russia due to its communist revolution. In 1918 more nations withdrew, and the major remaining nations of Britain, France, Germany and the United States ended the war with an armistice in November of that year.

In detail, the first year of the war finished with terrible casualties but no knock-out punches. France won a key initial Battle of the Marne, and that forced Germany to fight on two fronts after all. But while the Allied Powers were holding their own on the Western Front, Russia was losing on the Eastern Front. Russia was not as industrialized as the West and its military was inferior, but Russians were tenacious in battle.

=== The Colonies ===

Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which attempted to forge a supply line to Russia by capturing the Dardanelles. Instead, these three colonies suffered heavy losses that left them bitter about Britain, and desirous of independence from the British empire.

However, Britain was successful in enlisting troops from the colonies of Egypt, India, Australia and New Zealand to defeat the weakened Ottomans. An Arab revolt against the Turks (German allies) was led by a British soldier named T. E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence, known as “Lawrence of Arabia.” His guerrilla warfare campaign against the Turks kept large numbers of troops tied up trying to suppress it, and it helped the British capture Aqaba and Damascus. Meanwhile, the Indian Mohandas Gandhi encouraged support of the British in the war as a way of building good will towards the Indian cause for independence. French colonies also lent support.

The German colonies could not help the Germans, because these colonies were captured by Allied Powers.

[[Category:History]]

Vegetarianism

2007-08-14T03:23:37Z

PortlyMort:

'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. <ref>For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people. [http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department] </ref> It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to "inhumane" farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact.

Health can be given as another reason. In Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

It can be difficult to get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products, and many vegetarians take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods. <ref>"Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s" [http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html] </ref> <ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements] </ref>

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*Vegan - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals. This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin.[http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html]
*Lactovegetarian - Someone who eats a plant based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or lacto-ovovegetarian) - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.

==Famous Vegetarians==
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]<ref>www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]</ref>, and promoter of quack remedies.
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948, communist sympathizer.
*[[Adam]] and [[Eve]], while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]

[[category:psychology]] [[category:biology]]

Vegetarianism

2007-08-13T20:27:09Z

PortlyMort: looks more professional

'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. <ref>For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people. [http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department] </ref> It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to "inhumane" farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact.

Health can be given as another reason. In Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

It can be difficult to get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products, and many vegetarians take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods. <ref>"Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s" [http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html] </ref> <ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements] </ref>

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*Vegan - Someone who consumes only a diet based on plants; no animal meat, animal products such as milk or cheese, or byproducts such as gelatin.
*Lactovegetarian - Someone who eats a plant based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or lacto-ovovegetarian) - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.

==Famous Vegetarians==
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]<ref>www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]</ref>, and promoter of quack remedies.
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948, communist sympathizer.
*[[Adam]] and [[Eve]], while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]

[[category:psychology]] [[category:biology]]

Talk:Socialism

2007-08-10T22:18:01Z

PortlyMort: /* British socialism */

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

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

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-08-10T20:43:48Z

PortlyMort: /* British socialism */

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

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

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.

"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Errors in the article ==
I will quote the error and explain why it's wrong. I can't edit the article so I expect someone to make these necessary changes.

"Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany"

:National Socialist Germany was not socialist. It's laughable to claim that the best example throughout history of a fascist government was socialist. Hitler backed the fascists against the republicans and the socialists in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.
::That arguments going no where.
"socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners."

:Maybe it could be argued that Communism in actuality exhibits this feature but this article isn't about Communism it's about socialism as an intellectual idea. Socialism is very much a worker's rights philosophy. I've never even heard of this term 'nomenklatura'. I'd like to see a scholarly source for this claim.
::We don't really give a rip about commie/socialist double talk to disclaim and deny the historical record.
"Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income."

:See European Union and the higher standard of living under their socialist regime that they enjoy compared to Americans.
::Right. For those lucky enough to have jobs.
"Karl Marx considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism."

:This is just wrong and betrays a lack of knowledge of what Karl Marx wrote.
::That bit was put in by a fellow traveller.
"A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace."

:Whose major criticism? Should this be juxtaposed to Liberalism (a belief I expect the author would equally dislike) in which the rights of the minority are given weight over the will of the majority?
::Critics of Socialism. There are other people in the world, you know. They are [[human being]]s, and the ''do'' have certain basic rights, despite Socialist endless campaign against them.
"Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism" +

- :This sentence contradicts everything the article just stated about socialism. In sum the article says: "Socialism is this and this and this, however, most socialists are none of those things"
::That again is more commie-rot put in by a fellow traveller.
"In many European countries socialism has been changing to Social democracy."

:Where does this information come from? This betrays a lack of knowledge of European political parties. There is a Democratic Socialist party which is very distinct from other socialist parties.
::Another fellow traveller.
I think if this website or the authors and readers of it have any earnest desire to seek after the truth then very major changes are necessary.

This is by no means a defense of socialism though I am one. However, you can't intellectually debate a movement or a philosophy by assuming it is one thing or constructing a strawman out of it and debating against that construction. You should know the truth about it. For example, I don't believe in fascism, but I won't argue against fascism by first claiming that all fascists are pedophiles and because pedophilia is wrong so is fascism.

Again, I would contribute to the article myself but there's no option for an edit.

Thanks [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::We've got plenty of the 'Socialist' POV in here, and this article isn't going to be taken over by competing factions in sectartian dispute with each other. We want what comes nearest to reflecting what the historical record shows. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:36, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-08-10T20:25:20Z

PortlyMort: /* British socialism */

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

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

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Errors in the article ==
I will quote the error and explain why it's wrong. I can't edit the article so I expect someone to make these necessary changes.

"Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany"

:National Socialist Germany was not socialist. It's laughable to claim that the best example throughout history of a fascist government was socialist. Hitler backed the fascists against the republicans and the socialists in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

"socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners."

:Maybe it could be argued that Communism in actuality exhibits this feature but this article isn't about Communism it's about socialism as an intellectual idea. Socialism is very much a worker's rights philosophy. I've never even heard of this term 'nomenklatura'. I'd like to see a scholarly source for this claim.

"Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income."

:See European Union and the higher standard of living under their socialist regime that they enjoy compared to Americans.

"Karl Marx considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism."

:This is just wrong and betrays a lack of knowledge of what Karl Marx wrote.

"A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace."

:Whose major criticism? Should this be juxtaposed to Liberalism (a belief I expect the author would equally dislike) in which the rights of the minority are given weight over the will of the majority?

"Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism" +

- :This sentence contradicts everything the article just stated about socialism. In sum the article says: "Socialism is this and this and this, however, most socialists are none of those things"

"In many European countries socialism has been changing to Social democracy."

:Where does this information come from? This betrays a lack of knowledge of European political parties. There is a Democratic Socialist party which is very distinct from other socialist parties.

I think if this website or the authors and readers of it have any earnest desire to seek after the truth then very major changes are necessary.

This is by no means a defense of socialism though I am one. However, you can't intellectually debate a movement or a philosophy by assuming it is one thing or constructing a strawman out of it and debating against that construction. You should know the truth about it. For example, I don't believe in fascism, but I won't argue against fascism by first claiming that all fascists are pedophiles and because pedophilia is wrong so is fascism.

Again, I would contribute to the article myself but there's no option for an edit.

Thanks [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-08-10T19:55:18Z

PortlyMort: /* British socialism */

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

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

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)

2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.

The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.

Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.

It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.

Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.

Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.

This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?

You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

World War II

2007-08-10T19:52:35Z

PortlyMort: /* Causes */

'''World War II''' was a global conflict fought between the [[Allies|Allied]] powers including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], [[Britain]], [[France]], Australia, Canada and many other nations and the [[Axis (WWII)|Axis]] powers (mainly [[Nazism|Nazi]] [[Germany]], [[Fascism|Fascist]] [[Italy]], and Imperial [[Japan]]). The war is usually considered to have started on September 1, 1939 with the invasion of [[Poland]] by Nazi Germany. During the war, eight major world powers fought, along with several lesser states joining with one side or the other. On the side which lost were the Axis Powers Germany, [[Japan]], and [[Italy]]. Against them were the Allied Powers [[United States]], [[Great Britain]] and the Commonwealth, the [[Soviet Union]], [[France]], and [[China]] (which was friendly to the West at the time, see [[Second Sino-Japanese War]]). Russia was drawn into the war after Germany launched an attack codenamed [[Operation Barbarossa|Barbarossa]], and soon had the support of the Allies. Britain declared war in reaction to Germany's aggression against [[Poland]], along with most of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] nations.

==Causes==
The causes of World War II are complicated. The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China and the British and Dutch colonies, and the German invasion of Poland on the 1st September 1939. Following the two day deadline for the withdrawal of German forces, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed quickly by France, South Africa, Canada and Nepal.

One major cause of German aggression may be the fervent [[Nationalism]] that became the norm in Germany post-[[World War I]]. Germans were eager to reaffirm their position as a major player on the world stage.{{fact}}

The state of Germany in the aftermath of World War I is also considered to be a contributing factor. The [[Weimar Republic]] that was founded at the end of WW I, was struggling from the beginning. One reason were the harsh terms of Versailles treaty. Although the terms of the treaty were never fully enforced, the psychological damage was immense, since they were perceived as a grave injustice. The republic was also struggling with the rejection by monarchist, who were still occupying important position in the state. Many WWI veterans believed that the German forces in WW I were not defeated, but that the social democratic leaders, who founded the Weimar republic to thwart a communist revolution, surrendered to the allies for political gains. It was know is known as the "stab-in-the-back myth", and was used to discredit the republic[http://www.germannotes.com/hist_weimar_dolch.shtml]. Although the Weimar Republic enjoyed a time of economic resurgence after the early years of hyper-inflation it failed to gain deep public support. The Weimar Republic was famously called a ''democracy without democrats''.

In the early 1930 Germany was in a permanent political and constitutional crisis, caused by rising unemployment during the great depression. Germany was hit harder than most other countries. The National Socialists, known as Hitler movement, promised to restore national pride and statue, by disbanding the Versailles treaty, and reverting the injustices imposed onto Germany by its international enemies. It was common to blame the "international Jewdom", or to point to an international communist Jewish conspiracy against Germany. Part of this ideology was that Germany deserved to be larger, and that in order to survive, it would have to conquer the East.

In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WW II started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as an defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.

== German Tactics ==
The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.

==War in Europe 1939-1941==
[[Image:Communazi Peace Pact.jpg|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], Poland was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]
The French and British were initially reluctant to honor promises to the Polish government, avoiding serious consideration of an invasion of Germany. The British failed to send land forces in time to support the Poles (see [[Western betrayal]]). The French mobilized slowly and then launched a token offensive in the Saar. The Meanwhile, on September 8, the Germans reached Warsaw, having slashed through the Polish defenses.

Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Phoney War]]. This perception was not shared in [[Finland]], which fought a Soviet invasion started on November 30 1939. Despite the overwhelming numbers of the [[Red Army]], the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control.

May 10 1940 marked the end of any accusation of a phony war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British troops were able to evacuate mainland Europe at Dunkirk. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union<ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.</ref>, their alliances with fascist Italy, and a expansionist Japan, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that the United Kingdom had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], possibly crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. This was soon followed by the British invasion of neutral [[Iceland]] (the invasion of [[Denmark]] by German forces marks the start of an independent Iceland).

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. For many months the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and Polish pilots forced a rethink of [[German]] tactics. The period that followed is known as the [[Blitz]], where the RAF and Luftwaffe attempted to undermine the infrastructure of the opposing country. This was a period of great economic devastation, which took both countries a considerable period to recover from. More seriously it led to huge numbers of civilian deaths.

1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans put aside plans for an invasion of Britain and undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. In a war of major turning points, this was the most significant in Europe. This miscalculation diminished the German army's capacity. The war against the Soviet Union (known as the [[Great Patriotic War]] in the Soviet Union) demanded a huge dedication of resources and later in the war permitted an invasion of mainland Europe by Allied Forces on [[D-Day]].

==War in Europe 1944==
"The time of liberation is at hand. Poles, to arms! There is not a moment to lose!" This was broadcast on the Polish language radio station from Moscow on July 29, 1944, at 8:15 in the evening. Polish resistance fighters rose. But the Red Army, for sixty-three days, denying they knew anything about it, refused to drop weapons and food to assist the Polish fighters for whose liberty the British government had gone to war in September 1939. The Polish resistance fighters were massacred methodically by the Germans. At the very time at which Prime Minister Mikolajczyk from the legitimate [[Republic of Poland|Polish Government in exile]] in London flew to Moscow, the Kremlin "recognized" the [[Comintern]] puppet regime, the [[Lublin Committee]], as the new Polish "people's government." <ref>Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, ''The Rape of Poland; Pattern of Soviet Agression'', (NY: Whittlesey House, 1948), p. 70.</ref>

While Romania was frantically imploring the West for assistance, the U.S. [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) praised the Soviet Unions's "new democracy" and the "innocent nature of Communism." <ref>Reuben M. Markham, ''Rumania Uner the Soviet Yoke'' (Boston: Meader, 1949), p.
169.</ref> By November, [[Andrey Vyshinsky]], the legal mastermind who presided at the major show trials of Stalin's [[Great Purge]], arrived to "restore internal order."

==War in Europe 1945==

On January 5, 1945, the Soviet Union announced that the [[Comintern]] affiliated [[Lublin Committee]], with which it had dealt ''de facto'' ever since its birth, was now officially recognized as provisional government of Poland. "The [[Yalta Declaration]]," Soviet Deputy Commissar of Defense [[Nikolai Bulganin]] told the Lublin Committee on February 17, 1945 "is a scrap of paper.... You will be the Government of Poland, no matter how those elections turn out and whatever might happen in the meantime. Be steadfast and have faith in Stalin!" <ref>Rear Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias and Ladislas Farago, ''Behind Closed Doors; the Secret History of the Cold War'', (NY:Putnam, 1950), p. 58.</ref>

On February 24, 1945, in violation of the Yalta pact -- which had been signed on February 11 -- the U.S.S.R. indicated her unwillingness to co-operate in the Allied Control Councils in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, and on February 27, [[Andrey Vyshinsky]], in another violation of the Yalta pact, insisted by an official [[demarche]] that King Michael of Romania substitute Communists and Communist tools for certain members of his cabinet. Despite these Soviet manifestations of contempt for the agreements which had been signed at the Crimea Conference, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on March 1, 1945, told a joint session of Congress that "more than ever before, the major Allies are closely united."

==United States Enters the War==
The [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|attack on Pearl Harbor]] officially brought the United States into World War Two. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]] of the Japanese Imperial Navy was against engaging with the United States, due to fear of "waking a sleeping giant". The United States recovered from the shell shock of the initial attack and plunged into the war with the slogan "Remember Pearl Harbor!".

==War in the Pacific==
At first the United States was on the defensive, losing the Phillipines, and other countries under U.S. military protection. The battle of the Coral Sea was the first major engagement with the Japanese that resulted in a draw and set the stage for the battle of Midway a month later. That one battle changed the direction of the war forever, crushing Japanese offensive sea power in one strike. After that, the Japanese were forced to be on the defensive for the rest of the war and never seriously threatened the American military again. In order to shorten the war, the U.S. military chose to adopt a policy of island hopping that including bypassing most of the extensive Japanese holdings to instead focus on a relatively straight path leading to Japan.

Stalin, throughout the war, had assured the United States through Ambassadors [[Averell Harriman]],<ref> John R. Deane, The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-operation with Russia (NY:Viking, 1947) p. 226.</ref> Pat Hurley,<ref> William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Truman and Roosevelt; Based on his Notes and Diaries Made at the Time; (NY:Whittlesey House, 1950), p. 147.</ref> and Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]]<ref>Cordell Hull, Memoirs (NY:Macmillian, 1948), Chapter 90, p. 1398.</ref> that he would enter the war against Japan. In 1943, to Hull, the promise had been made "without any strings to it." In 1944, when the matter was again discussed with Harriman, Stalin specified his conditions: "provided that the United States would assist in building up sixty divisions in Siberia" and "provided the political aspects of Russia's participation had been clarified."<ref> John R. Deane, The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-operation with Russia (NY:Viking, 1947) p. 247.</ref>

==The End of World War II in Asia==
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Then, on August 9, a B-29 dropped the second atomic bomb. On August 20 the Japanese government told the United States it was ready to accept the terms which the Allies proposed. The next day, the Allies replied, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On August 14 the Japanese government agreed to this.

Then, September 2, 1945, the Japanese government, along with all its military forces, formally surrendered to the United States. This happened in a ceremony aboard a United States battleship, the ''Missouri'', on [[Tokyo Bay]], where the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]] was signed. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Fallout From World War II==

*[[Iron Curtain]]

*[[British Empire]]
The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which started the process of dismantling its empire. It was not until 2007 Britain finished paying off the loans to the USA which it had taken to fight Nazi Germany.

*the Netherlands and Indonesia
After the defeat of the Japanese empire, their army retired from the [[Dutch East Indies]] and the land was returned back to the Dutch. Quickly after that, the people of the islands revolted against the government on 17 August 1945 and declared themselves independent. The Dutch sent their “new” army to the colonies to restore order. The Dutch scored a number of victories, but after the political pressure from the USA and Australia the Dutch acknowledged in 27 December 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]]

*Supremacy of the USA in the Western World
Whilst most countries had seen their economies demolished by the war, the USA had industrialized heavily and made financial gains from sales of arms to other Allied countries. Prior to the war, one-third of Americans were employed in agriculture. The socioeconomic changes brought by returning soldiers, many of whom took advantage of a generous GI education benefits, precipitated the rise of the great American middle class.

*Supremacy of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.

*[[Vietnam War]]
During the war the French lost their colony of Vietnam to the Japanese. At the end of the war they decided to reassert their colonial mastery, but the Vietnamese now had other ideas. The battle with the French would eventually lead into the Vietnam war after the French defeat and American intervention ensued to prevent the spread of Communism.

==See also==
*[[Lend-Lease Act]]
*[[Cairo conference]]

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Socialism

2007-08-10T19:42:30Z

PortlyMort:

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

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

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Socialist" Britain ==

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

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

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

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)

2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.

The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.

Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.

It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.

Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.

Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.

This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?

You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

The Da Vinci Code

2007-08-09T15:29:19Z

PortlyMort:

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code makes some astounding assertions about Christianity that, if true, would uproot everything traditional Biblical Christianity stands for, and could potentially destroy the faith of millions. Although only a novel, Dan Brown creates the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched, even including a “fact page” in the beginning of the book and making references to numerous subsidizing “historical” sources, historians and scholars throughout.

In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) This statement alone proves that Dan Brown takes the content of his “novel” very seriously—so seriously in fact, that on the same interview he even described a religious-sounding experience he had while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”—by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. “Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) By its own author’s confession, The Da Vinci Code is far more than a mere work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]]—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]
Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, numerology(the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

==='''Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”'''===
----
Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

==='''Part III: The Gnostics
[[category:book|Da Vinci Code]]

Ernst Haeckel

2007-08-09T15:15:30Z

PortlyMort: ?

'''Ernst Haeckel''' was a [[German]] scientist and [[evolutionist]] famous for producing faked photographs showing a series of minievolutions occuring in [[human]] [[embryo]]s. Although this information has been known for many years, his photos are still present in many evolution textbooks.<ref>The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, 2004, Pg. 48 </ref>

==References==

<References/>

==Also See==

[[Haeckel diagrams]]

[[category:evolution]]

Michael Behe

2007-08-09T15:11:26Z

PortlyMort:

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]] who wrote ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'' and ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', books which present a case for [[Intelligent Design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]] are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Behe also said:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe also accepts ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

Unlike true [[creationists]], Behe believes in many of the principal tenets of [[evolutionary theory]], such as an earth billions of years old, descent from common ancestors, and even [[natural selection]] within closely related organisms.

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science journal ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent design theorists]]

Evolutionary theory

2007-08-09T15:03:34Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Theory of evolution

#redirect[[Theory of evolution]]

Michael Behe

2007-08-09T15:03:06Z

PortlyMort:

[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Behe''' is a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University in [[Pennsylvania]] who wrote ''[[Darwin’s Black Box]]'', a book which presents a case for [[Intelligent Design]]. He argues that [[molecular machines]], such as the
bacterial [[flagellum]] are [[irreducibly complex]]. Such machines require all of their parts to function, Behe says, and so could not have come into being through an unguided process. He considers this evidence that the flagellum must have been designed.

Behe also said:

:"There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations." ''Darwin’s Black Box'' (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>

Professor Behe also provides a response to critics concerning peer-review. <ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm</ref>

Behe also accepts ''common descent'':

"The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."<ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm Darwin Under the Microscope]</ref>

Unlike true [[creationists]], Behe believes in many of the principal tenets of [[evolutionary theory]], such as an earth billions of years old, descent from common ancestors, and even [[natural selection]] within closely related organisms.

== Behe's Criticism of the Materialistic Science of Francis Crick ==
In 1992, the science journal ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref> Behe wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. <ref>http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel</ref>}}

==Peer review of his ideas==

During Behe's testimony at the trial of ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177</ref>

:Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

:A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.

:Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

:Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

:Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

==Notes==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Behe, Michael}}
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Intelligent design theorists]]

Hals

2007-08-09T14:33:58Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Frans Hals

#redirect[[Frans Hals]]

Vermeer

2007-08-09T14:33:25Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Jan Vermeer

#redirect[[Jan Vermeer]]

Talk:Generation Investment Management

2007-08-09T14:27:51Z

PortlyMort: New page: Any source for that quote? Right now I'm assuming it's a joke. ~~~~

Any source for that quote? Right now I'm assuming it's a joke. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:27, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Tort

2007-08-09T14:11:07Z

PortlyMort:

Torts are a diverse collection of civil wrongs which are actionable outside of either contract or statute law. Torts include negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, breach of statutory duty, defamation, trespass to the person, trespass to land, passing off, malicious falsehood, [[deceit]], conversion and various so-called economic torts.

The word tort comes from the Latin ''tortum'' which means bent or twisted.

[[Category:Law]]

Greenhouse effect

2007-08-09T14:09:33Z

PortlyMort: if it's good enough for the main oage it seems its good enough for this article

{{merge|greenhouse gas}}

The '''greenhouse effect''' refers to the retention of heat at the [[Earth]]'s surface and in the [[atmosphere]] which results when gas molecules reduce the escape of [[infrared radiation]] into [[outer space]]. The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by [[Joseph Fourier]]. The effect was disproven by German scientists in 2007 [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml?s=lh].

These [[greenhouse gas]] molecules (principally [[water]], [[carbon dioxide]], and [[methane]])
absorb and re-emit longwave [[infrared rays]] emitted from the earth's surface into the atmosphere (see [[radiational cooling]]).

Sunlight falling on the surface of a planet is primarily in the visible part of the spectrum. The surface absorbs some of the incident sunlight, and some is reflected, depending on the reflectivity of the surface (see [[albedo]]). The reflected light mostly passes through the atmosphere back to space. The absorbed light warms the surface.

Any body with a temperature radiates according to [[Planck's law]], <ref> Thermodynamics says that any body with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate its energy away. [http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BlackHoleThermo/BlackHoleThermo.html] </ref>
and the Earth is no exception. Due to its relatively low temperature, the emission from the ground is in the infrared (IR) part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Greenhouse gases, by definition, are good absorbers at these wavelengths. The gas absorbs the IR radiation, and emits IR radiation, both up and down. Because these gases are above the surface, they are at a lower temperature than the surface, so they emit at a different frequency. The net effect is that energy is retained by the Earth system, warming it.<ref>D. Hartmann, Global Physical Climatology</ref> This is the natural greenhouse effect, which allows the Earth to be habitable. When the atmospheric composition is changed by human activity resulting in increases in greenhouse gases, the warming associated is called the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:
:The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

This insulating effect has been compared to a blanket or to the glass walls and roof of a [[greenhouse]], but the process is not the same.

==See also==
*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]

==Notes==
<references/>

==Bibliography==
<references/>

[[Category:Ecology]]

Greenhouse effect

2007-08-08T15:25:29Z

PortlyMort:

Animal rights

2007-08-07T14:24:16Z

PortlyMort: whatever happened to "we don't take journalists' word as fact"?

The '''animal liberation''' is a [[liberal]] movement claiming to support the rights of animals. Some believe that the movement does not seek to improve animals' lives, but rather to place unnecessary restrictions on ordinary people. [http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage.cfm/topic/8]

[[Category:Social issues]]

Henry II

2007-08-06T14:31:26Z

PortlyMort:

'''HENRY II''' (1133-89) '''King of [[England]]''' (1154-89).

Henry was one of the most able of [[English]] kings. He came to the throne at a time when the legal and social fabric of England had all but disappeared in the civil war of much of the previous 19 years, and set about repairing the institutions of law and administration. By strength of character, some persuasion, and a mixture of brute force and clever stratagem, he brought the barons of the realm back under the control of the crown, and set about creating a system whereby the effective administration of the his dominions was not contingent on the king’s presence.

The first of the Angevin kings of England, he brought with him the titles of Count of Anjou from his father, Duke of Normandy from his mother’s line, and Duke of Aquitaine as right of his marriage to [[Eleanor of Aquitaine]]. He was lord of three fifths of what is now France, as well as England; an enormous area given the atrocious roads of the time and the notoriously fickle sea conditions between England and the Continent. That he kept his lands under a good degree of control for most of his reign, and managed to improve the civic, justice and economic institutions, indicate not only ability, but enormous stamina. He spent most of his reign travelling.

Whilst expert in statecraft, he was still given to bouts of temper and passion, especially when he perceived himself thwarted in his aims. The tragedy of [[Thomas Becket]] is an example here. A fit of temper and thoughtless words brought about the death of a good
man (though one as pig-headed and sure of his own right as his sovereign and one-time friend.)

Perhaps his greatest failure was in the allocation of his domains to his sons in a will in 1169. His decision to give his youngest son, John, three castles in Anjou, after first denying him any estates, (hence “John Lackland”) incited his three eldest surviving sons to revolt in 1173. His wife sided with them. The remainder of his reign was to be plagued by the need to keep his family under control. Louis of France and, after 1180, Philip II were a constant irritant as one offspring or another (or all) enlisted aid from the old enemy (and Henry’s feudal overlord…as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, and Duke of Aquitaine Henry owed fealty to the king of France; and each year went to him and swore the oath on bended knee.)

He died in 1189 shortly after losing a campaign against a coalition of Richard and John with Philip and having to sign a humiliating peace.

His reforms in the administration of his realms, and his strengthening of the rule of law enabled these institutions to withstand, by and large, the prolonged absences of Richard I and the struggle between King John and the barons during the following two and a half decades.

{{Uncited2}}
[[Category:UK Monarchs]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Henry 2}}

Talk:Henry II

2007-08-05T22:27:09Z

PortlyMort:

I know Conservapedia is supposed to be US-centric, but is British-centric as a second choice a policy? There are numerous other Henry II's out there, should the title specify England for this one? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 01:05, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean? His title is stated twice in the first two lines. When other personages of that name become the subjects of articles in CP then I am sure that will be reflected in the Search Results. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:45, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with AlanE here. Alan, I also need to get in contact with you. Please enable your email through CP here, ok? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

**My point is that someone looking up a different "Henry II" (of France, for example) will find Henry II of England and no others. Not even an ackowledgment that there are others. Just seems a bit sloppy. As for email, I'm not sure what needs to be said that can't be said on my talk page, but I'll look into activation. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:27, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Thomas Becket

2007-08-03T05:12:07Z

PortlyMort:

'''Thomas Becket''' (1118–1170) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 to 1170 who defended the Church against demands by [[King Henry II]]. This foreshadowed a future conflict between English King [[Henry VIII]] and [[Thomas More]].

Knights of King Henry II interpreted his intense complaints about Becket as a call to murder him. The King's specific words which influenced the knights have been variously recorded: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?", "Who will revenge me of the injuries I have sustained from one turbulent priest?", and "What a band of loathsome vipers I have nursed in my bosom who will let their lord be insulted by this low-born cleric!"

The King's knights murdered Becket in [[Canterbury]] Cathedral, and within three years he was canonized as a saint by the Church in Rome.

The movie ''Becket'', staring [[Peter O'Toole]] and [[Richard Burton]], is much acclaimed and is replaying on big screens in February and March 2007 throughout the United States.

[[Category:Saints|Becket, Thomas]]

Talk:Henry II

2007-08-03T05:05:13Z

PortlyMort: New page: I know Conservapedia is supposed to be US-centric, but is British-centric as a second choice a policy? There are numerous other Henry II's out there, should the title specify England for t...

King Henry II

2007-08-03T05:02:42Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Henry II

#redirect[[Henry II]]

Democratic Party

2007-08-02T20:23:45Z

PortlyMort: /* Economic policy */

[[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Democratic Party.]]

The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It is generally seen as being politically between center and [[leftist | left]] of center, while the rival [[Republican Party]] is positioned to the [[rightist | right]] of center (see [[political spectrum theory]]). Members and supporters of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats.

The Democrats currently control the [[110th United States Congress]] together with the majority of State governorships and legislatures.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> According to a Pew Research Center poll, 50 percent of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35 percent for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> However, Democrats have served out only three of the last ten presidential terms. Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 66.0% disapproval and only a 25.0% approval rating -- the lowest in ten years since the [[Impeachment#Bill_Clinton|Impeachment]] trial of [[President Clinton]] -- according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 06/11 - 07/11. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18 RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Poll], 06/11 - 07/11.</ref> ''Investor's Business Daily'' remarked, "For all the promises of its new Democratic leaders, Congress seems truly interested in doing only one thing: surrendering in [[Iraq]]. No wonder its public approval ratings have sunk below the president's." <ref>[http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264123134498383&kw=For,all,the,promises The Do-One-Thing Congress], ''Investor's Business Daily, May 15, 2007.</ref>

Like the Republicans, the Democrats are currently selecting their candidate for the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 presidential election]]; the front-runners in the contest are Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] of [[New York]] and Senator [[Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]]. The most recent president who was a Democrat was [[Bill Clinton]], who served from 1993 to 2001.

==History==
The Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] as a congressional caucus to fight for the [[Bill of Rights]] and to oppose the elitist [[Federalist Party]] led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], which fought for the [[Constitution]].

In 1798 , the party was officially named the "Democratic-Republican Party", and in 1800 Jefferson was elected as the first Democratic [[President of the United States]]. Jefferson, a member of the landed gentry and a slave owner, served two terms as president with distinction, and was succeeded by another Democrat, [[James Madison]], in 1808 . During Madison's tenure, the United States fought the [[United Kingdom]] and lost terribly during the [[War of 1812]]. Forces from Canada beat back Madison's militias and even managed to burn the White House down. James Monroe, another Democratic-Republican, was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feelings". In this period, the party dominated American politics with little opposition. Monroe was followed by John Quincy Adams who won the hotly contested election of 1824, becoming the first son of a former president to be elected president.

[[Andrew Jackson]], defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] <ref>[http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal], by Robert Remini.</ref> according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party." <ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/06/our_history.php Democratic National Committee, ''Our History''], retrieved 25 March 2007.</ref> Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref> The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). <http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/>

The Jacksonian period also saw the expansion of the voting franchise as most states did away with, or decreased property requirements for voting. The beneficiaries of the expansion of the franchise however, were nearly all white males. Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001949.html String of Successes Enlivens Democratic Party], Michael D. Shear, ''The Washington Post'', 22 February 2007.</ref>

Democrat [[Franklin Roosevelt]], who served as President from 1933 to 1945, led the United States during the [[Great Depression]] and throughout most of the [[Second World War]]. Due to his popularity and courageous leadership during the war, he remains the only President elected to three terms. Under his successor, [[Harry Truman]] the United States emerged a victor from World War II and articulated the Doctrine of [[Containment]] which committed the U.S. to stop the spread of global [[Communism]]. Truman ordered the Berlin airlift in 1948 and sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950.

==Policies and criticism==

In June 2005, while Democrats held a mock impeachment inquiry in President's Bush's foreign policy, [[anti-Semitic]] materials were distributed at the Democratic Party National headquarters. The literature claimed that an Israeli company had warning of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], and an "insider trading scam" on Wall Street had occurred simultaneously. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War], Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', June 17, 2005.</ref>

The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.

R. Emmetrt Tyrell has been highly critical of the currect Democratic leadership, stating, "Can anything embarrass [[Speaker Pelosi]] and the rest of the Democratic leadership? Frankly I doubt it. They are all neatly shut off from the world in their fantasy of moral and intellectual superiority." <ref>[http://www.nysun.com/article/54321 Vietnam All Over Again] By R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., ''The New York Sun'', May 11, 2007.</ref>

===Economic policy===
In the field of economic policy, Democrats favor high progressive taxes, higher government spending and increasing the minimum wage.'{{fact}}

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]]. <ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.{{fact}}

In addition to the Democratic party's alleged stance to "tax the rich," some members of the Congressional Democratic Leadership have proposed a 50 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline which would disproportionately hurt those least able to absorb the cost at a time when worldwide gas prices are at historic highs. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase], By Chris Good, ''The Hill'', July 07, 2007.</ref>

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic. <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref>

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] which claims a long standing opposition to school vouchers <ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> reported Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' saying,
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education." <ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions.{{fact}} While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
The Democrat fondness for heavy government intervention into the marketplace{{fact}} and social engineering{{fact}} means that a significant proportion of their base and of their candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election ideologically favor introducing a system of [[socialized healthcare]]{{fact}}; regardless of the crippling tax burden this would require to sustain itself and the low standard of care achieved by socialized health programs in other countries compared to the United States. However, many first world nations such as France and Britain do have socialized healthcare systems, and are ranked 1 and 18 by the [[World Health Organization]]<ref>http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html</ref>, respectively, compared to the United States' rank of 37. Therefore, many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal healthcare]] to be a priority because of the appeal to nearly 50 million voters{{fact-political}} without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Among the leading proponents for this idea include [[Barack Obama|Sen. Barack Obama]] and [[John Edwards|Sen. John Edwards]]; the latter formerly being the running mate to [[John Kerry|Sen. John Kerry]] in the [[2004 Presidential Election]].

===Homosexual Agenda===
Democrat lawmakers and opinion-formers consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s, [[gay marriage]] and [[gay adoption]] of children over defense of the [[traditional family]]. Likewise they are vigorous in attempting to amend "[[hate crime]]" laws, which some experts maintain would make criticism of the [[homosexual lifestyle]] illegal;<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54535 Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan], WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. </ref> while at the same time supporting efforts to disseminate favorable opinions regarding [[homosexuality]] through channels such as the mainstream media and even the educational system in the face of opposition from churches and religious authorities, a broad coalition of [[Republican Party|Republican]] and Independent politicians. Democrats reject the idea of a [[Homosexual agenda]] preferring to speak in terms of [[Gay rights|"gay rights"]] when this issue is raised; the Democratic Party is the recipient and beneficiary of funding from homosexual lobbying groups and can be seen by their positions as the United States' largest and most powerful ''de facto'' supporter of the Homosexual Agenda. <ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000158 Human Rights Campaign], opensecrets.org </ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Both historically and today, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party {{fact}}, and a number of Democratic office-holders, such as Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]], are Catholics. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].{{fact}}

With regard to [[Protestant]] Christians, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in particular are associated with the [[Republican Party]]. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. {{fact}} One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestant Christians and from secular and atheist white voters.{{fact}} The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestant Christians (and, indeed, among orthodox Catholics) contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]].{{fact}} One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)

==See also==
*[[Phonemarks]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:American Political Parties]] [[category:political parties]]

Jean Rameau

2007-08-01T20:05:43Z

PortlyMort:

'''Jean Philippe Rameau''' (1683 - 1764) was a French composer of the [[Baroque]] era. His father was organist for the cathedral in [[Dijon]], and started his son's musical training at a young age. He studied law, but at 17 abandoned the subject and moved to Italy, before seeking a position as an organist in [[Paris]]. He was unsuccessful, and soon moved to the mountains at Auvergne. There he wrote treatises on [[harmony]] and made studies of the inversions of chords.

It was not until much later that Rameau became well known, as he began a long series of [[opera]]s. Among his compositions are ''Castor and Pollux'', ''Hypolite et Aricie'', ''Dardanus'', and ''Le temple de la gloire''. He also was a prolific composer for the [[harpsichord]], and other [[chamber music]].

==References==
*Eva Hansl and Helen Kaufmann, ''Minute Sketches of Great Composers'', Grosset and Dunlap

[[Category:Composers]]

Jean Philippe Rameau

2007-08-01T20:03:53Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Jean Rameau

#redirect[[Jean Rameau]]

Rameau

2007-08-01T19:51:41Z

PortlyMort: Redirecting to Jean Rameau

#redirect[[Jean Rameau]]

Jean Rameau

2007-08-01T19:51:18Z

PortlyMort: new article

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-08-01T18:54:15Z

PortlyMort: /* Number 1 */

{{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]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #1 ==

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

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

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

== Liberal bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

== The Deluge criticism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #47 ==

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

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

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

: Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. [[User:NPOV|NPOV]] 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

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

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

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

--

Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? {{unsigned|Denzo}}
:I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
:But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
:* "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
:* "grammer" is correctly spelt "gramm'''a'''r".
:* "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
:* "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
:* What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fine:

<blockquote>
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children
</blockquote>

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Denzo|Denzo]], answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, ''with'' photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is ''devoted'' to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!

:We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we ''do'' observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We ''also'' observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.

:If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is [[free software]] and as such available free of charge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't.
[[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Denzo, you still didn't explain ''what'' is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present ''all'' the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

*A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
*Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
*The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like [[Sparta]]
*The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
:Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
:I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't ''care'' what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.

You DONT HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS! You clearly don't! YOUR NAME IS CONSERVAPEDIA!

This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:What makes no sense? And I don't believe in a "giant cookie monster" (actually, I don't believe in ''cookies''; we have ''biscuits'' here in Oz :-) ). And I'm not forcing anything on you, am I? I'm expressing my view, ''just as you are''. And just because you don't know of any evidence to support creation does not mean that there is none. I know of plenty. What evidence do you have that the Bible was written by ancient kings (apart from some some of the poetic books)? Is your belief on those things 'literal' truth?
:I asked if you agreed that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. You claimed that we don't have that, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question. And while you're at it, stop shouting, it's not nice.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 26 July 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)

== 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)

==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)

Alexander Hamilton

2007-08-01T18:16:58Z

PortlyMort: /* Death */

[[image:alexhamilton.jpg|300px|thumb|Alexander Hamilton. By John Trumball 1792.]]
'''Alexander Hamilton''' (January 11, 1757 - July 12, 1804) was the first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] on the [[United States]]. His far reaching vision put the United States on an economic platform that helped it to become the premiere economy in the world today.

==Life==
Hamilton was born out of wedlock in the [[British West Indies]]. Recognizing the young man's talents, patrons arranged for Hamilton to immigrate to [[New York City]], where he attended King's College (now Columbia University.). Some scholars have argued that Hamilton’s origins can be reflected in his later life, where, unlike much of the Revolutionary generation, his views were more nationalistic, rather than tied to the interests of a particular region or state. Hamilton entered the military as a Captain of Artillery in the Continental Army in 1776. Hamilton fought in the battles of Princeton and Germantown and came to the attention of General [[George Washington]]. Washington promoted Hamilton to rank of colonel and made him a member of his staff. Hamilton took part in the climatic battle of the war at Yorktown. Some scholars believe that Hamilton may have alerted General Washington to the existence of the Newburgh Conspiracy. Hamilton was also a member of the Continental Congress, [[New York]] State assembly, and a member of the [[Philadelphia]] Constitutional Convention.

Hamilton authored 51 of the 85 ''[[Federalist Papers]],'' while [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] composed the others. These editorials, published in newspapers throughout the United States, helped turn popular opinion in favor of ratifying the Constitution, particularly in the important states of [[New York]] and [[Virginia]].

Perhaps Hamilton's greatest contribution to the success of the United States occurred during his tenure as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1789 to 1795. Through a system of tariffs and excise taxes (some of which, as demonstrated by the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], caused a great deal of resentment), Hamilton placed the United States on sound financial footing. While Hamilton disliked taxes, he also realized that they were necessary. Hamilton not only favored close trade ties with [[Great Britain]], the world’s leading commercial power, but he believed that the United States should emulate their economic system. In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton envisioned the United States as a nation that would rely on manufacturing and commerce in order to become a great power. This (among other things) put him at odds with [[Thomas Jefferson]], who envisioned the United States as an agrarian republic.

Hamilton, along with [[Benjamin Franklin]], is one of the very few non-presidents to be portrayed on American money. Hamilton's portrait is on the $10 bill, while Franklin is on the $100 bill.

==Death==
Hamilton's long standing rivalry with [[Aaron Burr]] eventually lead to Burr accusing Hamilton of slander. Hamilton replied that the anti Burr statements he had made were not slander but were instead the truth. The resulting argument brought a life time of feuding to a head in the form of a duel. The duel took place on the 11th of July 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton was wounded in the duel, and died of a gunshot the next day. <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101 Biography]</ref> Hamilton believed that a [[Christian]] gentleman shoots over his target, and that honor is served.{{fact}} Burr had no such belief. Hamilton's son died in a duel the same way.

==References==
<references/>

Joseph Ellis, ''Founding Brothers'' (New York: Vintage, 2000).

John Ferling, ''A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic'' (Oxford University Press, 2003).

Ron Chernow, ''Alexander Hamilton'' (New York: Penquin, 2005).

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hamilton, Alexander}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Ten Commandments

2007-08-01T17:50:49Z

PortlyMort:

* I propose that we use the king james version for this entry.
** Why? Personally, I believe we should keep the NIV because it gives a more precise meaning for some of the words. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:17, 5 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because the King James version is so familiar, so beloved, and of such great ''literary'' importance, it seems to me that if an article is describing a ''familiar'' or ''frequently quoted'' passage in the Bible, it should present ''both'' a (presumably more) accurate modern translation ''and also'' the more frequently quoted King James version. Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:25, 5 January 2007 (EST)
*** P. S. Obviously the King James text continues to be such a mental landmark that even if we use modern language for the commandments themselves, we still call them "The Ten Commandments" rather than "The Ten Laws" or "The Ten Commands." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:31, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**** Dpbsmith, I agree with you. Why don't we post both as SharonS recommends? Does anyone else have an opinion? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:12, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*There are advantages and disadvantages to both versions. I think the best idea is to post both. Multiple translations convey a better sense of the differing ways in which the Hebrew can be interpreted. This will make the page much more well rounded and complete.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Trouble is that an encyclopedia is supposed to ''refer to'' the evidence, not quote it verbatim. It would be a nice idea to quote ''all'' the translations (there are dozens), but IMO PhilipB's proposal is the best, not because the KJV is always the most accurate (it isn't) but because it is the most literal (sometimes absurdly so), and therefore tends to preclude all 'interpretations'. It is also out of copyright. Given the tendency around here to quote the NIV (!) that would seem to be a wise precaution!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Ten Commandments in US law ==

You would probably be better off looking up the Noachide covenant and its influence on law - in paticular Hugo Grotius along with the 102nd Congress passing P.L. 102-14. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, laws against "elder abuse" could be interpreted as supporting the Fifth Commandment. [[User:Knoodelhed|Knoodelhed]] 13:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== American spellings ==

Shouldn't the American spellings be used in this article? [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 13:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I believe they are now! Though quite how they knew what they would be in 1611 I cannot imagine! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blue laws==
I added a bit saying that some states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays to the 4th commanded in US law section. I'm pretty sure this is still true in some places; at least it was as of recently. Massachusetts did not permit liquor stores to be open on Sunday last I heard (though bars can be), and in New York I still think you can't buy alcohol before noon. If I'm wrong and these laws have changed feel free to revert, although I'd like a source. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ten Commandments

2007-08-01T13:32:21Z

PortlyMort:

* I propose that we use the king james version for this entry.
** Why? Personally, I believe we should keep the NIV because it gives a more precise meaning for some of the words. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:17, 5 January 2007 (EST)
*** Because the King James version is so familiar, so beloved, and of such great ''literary'' importance, it seems to me that if an article is describing a ''familiar'' or ''frequently quoted'' passage in the Bible, it should present ''both'' a (presumably more) accurate modern translation ''and also'' the more frequently quoted King James version. Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:25, 5 January 2007 (EST)
*** P. S. Obviously the King James text continues to be such a mental landmark that even if we use modern language for the commandments themselves, we still call them "The Ten Commandments" rather than "The Ten Laws" or "The Ten Commands." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:31, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**** Dpbsmith, I agree with you. Why don't we post both as SharonS recommends? Does anyone else have an opinion? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:12, 5 January 2007 (EST)

*There are advantages and disadvantages to both versions. I think the best idea is to post both. Multiple translations convey a better sense of the differing ways in which the Hebrew can be interpreted. This will make the page much more well rounded and complete.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 12:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Trouble is that an encyclopedia is supposed to ''refer to'' the evidence, not quote it verbatim. It would be a nice idea to quote ''all'' the translations (there are dozens), but IMO PhilipB's proposal is the best, not because the KJV is always the most accurate (it isn't) but because it is the most literal (sometimes absurdly so), and therefore tends to preclude all 'interpretations'. It is also out of copyright. Given the tendency around here to quote the NIV (!) that would seem to be a wise precaution!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Ten Commandments in US law ==

You would probably be better off looking up the Noachide covenant and its influence on law - in paticular Hugo Grotius along with the 102nd Congress passing P.L. 102-14. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, laws against "elder abuse" could be interpreted as supporting the Fifth Commandment. [[User:Knoodelhed|Knoodelhed]] 13:07, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

== American spellings ==

Shouldn't the American spellings be used in this article? [[User:Fairandbalanced|Fairandbalanced]] 13:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I believe they are now! Though quite how they knew what they would be in 1611 I cannot imagine! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Blues laws==
I added a bit saying that some states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays to the 4th commanded in US law section. I'm pretty sure this is still true in some places; at least it was as of recently. Massachusetts did not permit liquor stores to be open on Sunday last I heard (though bars can be), and in New York I still think you can't buy alcohol before noon. If I'm wrong and these laws have changed feel free to revert, although I'd like a source. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Ten Commandments

2007-08-01T13:28:57Z

PortlyMort: /* The Ten Commandments in US law */

{{Christianity}}
[[Image:Bdytey.jpg|right|thumb|[[Moses]] with the Ten Commandments by Rembrandt (1659)]]
The '''Ten Commandments,''' or the ''Decalogue,'' is a set of laws which, according to the [[Bible]], [[Moses]] said were given to him by [[God]].

There are [[Alleged Bible contradictions|two versions]], generally similar but somewhat different in wording: [[Exodus]] 20:3-17 and [[Deuteronomy]] 5:6-21. The version in Deuteronomy adds the detail of Moses saying that [[Yahweh|God]] "delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God. (KJV)"

The Bible itself refers to there being "''ten'' commandments" in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, but it is not clear how to parcel out the fifteen or sixteen verses into ten commandments, and different religious groups have done this in different ways. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" (KJV - see below) are sometimes considered to be two different commandments and sometimes as two parts of the same commandment.

[[Protestant]]s assign the Fifth Commandment to "honor thy father and thy mother," but in [[Catholic]] texts this is the Fourth Commandment.<ref>An atheistic website provides an interesting comparison among faiths with respect to the Ten Commandments, and many sources: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm</ref> The Jewish tradition is to call that requirement the Fifth Commandment.

However, as Jewish people would also recognize, the ''[[Torah]]'', or [[Law]] (the first five books of the Old Testament) actually contains not ten, but 613 positive and negative commandments. Thus, when [[Jesus]] is asked (at [[Matthew]] 22:34-36) which is the greatest commandment in the Law, he picks two of the other 603: 'You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength' (Deuteronomy 6:5) and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' ([[Leviticus]] 19:18).

== King James Version (KJV) ==

#I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
#Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
#Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
#Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
#Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
#Thou shalt not kill. [Hebrew ''ratsach'', to kill, slay, murder]
#Thou shalt not commit [[adultery]].
#Thou shalt not steal.
#Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
#Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

==The Ten Commandments in US law==

In several controversies over the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, and especially outside courthouses, the influence of the Ten Commandments on US law becomes relevant as proponents of the displays argue that these commandments form part of the foundation of the US legal system.

1. This is not only unmentioned in US law, but is specifically opposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution itself. Any attempt to impose the belief or non-belief in a particular God by legal means is strictly prohibited.

2. In a similar way, the first amendment, by protecting freedom of speech, explicitly forbids any legal means of enforcing the second commandment - which is itself a restriction on speech.

3. Nothing in current state or federal law specifically prohibits the taking in vain of God's name in general, but it may be in violation of broadcast decency laws if shown on television or radio.

4. Past state laws have enforced the sabbath by forbidding various activities, such as the sale of specific goods, on Sundays. These, however, are all now repealed or struck down. Closure of shops on Sundays is by convention, but not legally enforced. However, some states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays.

5. No law enforces this commandment. It is doubtful that it could be enforced.

6. This commandment is very clearly enforced by US law, but in some US-states the death penalty is not prohibited. However, as this prohibition has arisen in many diverse religions and legal system, it is highly probable it would have been included regardless of its mention in the ten commandments.

7. Adultery is not a criminal offense, but it will influence civil divorce proceedings and affect the distribution of assets. Jesus clarified the definition of adultery, for instance in Matthew 8:27-32, to include remarriage after divorce in most cases. Until recently, most states other than Nevada outlawed divorce for this reason. Today most states and many Christian denominations define adultery in a narrow way to allow remarriage after divorce, contrary to Jesus' law. Many Christians believe that this commandment, which forbids adultery ("voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife or by a married woman with another than her husband" [Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1934]), also forbids fornication ("illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery" [op. cit.]).

8. As with 6.

9. As with 6, when used during litigation, or otherwise spoken under oath (see [[perjury]]). This law is required for any functioning legal system. For someone to bear false witness against a neighbor in a less formal setting (e.g. lying to a third party about a neighbor in the course of private conversation) could, in some circumstances, be a [[tort]], but rarely a crime.

10. As a prohibition on a form of thought, this cannot possibly be enforced by legal means.

==The movie==
''The Ten Commandments'' is also the title of a famous 1956 motion picture, produced and directed by [[Cecil B. DeMille]] and starring [[Charlton Heston]] as Moses. It tells the story of Moses essentially as told in the Book of Exodus, with a few changes.

As publicity for the film, and in conjunction with a project of the [[Fraternal Order of Eagles]], Paramount helped finance the placement of hundreds of stone tablets engraved with the Ten Commandments. These were placed at courthouse squares, at city halls and in public parks, and became a center of controversy, particularly in recent years, as to whether they violate the separation of Church and State<ref>''Ten Commandments Monoliths'', from the March 2002 issue of ''Eagle Magazine''[http://www.foe.com/tencommandments/]mar_2002_ten_commandments.html</ref> In recent years, liberal attorneys and judges have opposed the display of the Ten Commandments on public property by exploiting the judicial system.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Judaism]]

Thomas Becket

2007-08-01T13:24:56Z

PortlyMort: fix wording. made it sound like the king said all those things, when they're really different representations of 1 statement

'''Thomas Becket''' (1118–1170) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 to 1170 who defended the Church against demands by [[King Henry II]]. This foreshadowed a future conflict between English King Henry VIII and Thomas More.

Knights of King Henry II interpreted his intense complaints about Becket as a call to murder him. The King's specific words which influenced the knights have been variously recorded: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?", "Who will revenge me of the injuries I have sustained from one turbulent priest?", and "What a band of loathsome vipers I have nursed in my bosom who will let their lord be insulted by this low-born cleric!"

The King's knights murdered Becket in [[Canterbury]] Cathedral, and within three years he was canonized as a saint by the Church in Rome.

The movie ''Becket'', staring [[Peter O'Toole]] and [[Richard Burton]], is much acclaimed and is replaying on big screens in February and March 2007 throughout the United States.

[[Category:Saints|Becket, Thomas]]

Talk:MSM

2007-08-01T02:57:48Z

PortlyMort:

What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

MSM

2007-08-01T02:56:12Z

PortlyMort: remove wikipedia section, unless someone can explain the point of it

[[Conservative]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its [[liberal bias]].

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Talk:MSM

2007-07-31T20:12:00Z

PortlyMort: New page: What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. ~~~~

What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)