Talk:Christmas tree

2009-11-03T03:43:12Z

RMcKinely:

Talk:Christmas tree

2009-11-03T03:42:06Z

RMcKinely: Undo revision 589958 by Human (Talk)

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
Umm...if the first Christmas tree mentioned was in 1605, why is there mention of one in Riga 95 years ealier? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:03, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:New International Version

2009-11-03T03:37:54Z

RMcKinely: rv vandal site editor

Talk:Arab American

2009-11-03T03:36:07Z

RMcKinely: rv trolling

We are not going to create a crisis where there is none. If you believe the 15% increase in reported cases is significant, then get data showing the numbers. I think you will find it amounts to 10 or 15 more complaints. If you have information to the contrary, then we will consider it then, but it is not our intention to parrot articles targeting how horrible America is when our country responded with incredible tolerance and should be praised. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think we should report the data and not our (or in this case: ''your personal'') interpretation of said data. Saying that the increase in violence was 15% in one year is encyclopedic style. Removing said data and inserting "Incidents of harassment were up slightly from year to year" is personal interpretation and too vague.
:Additionally, your other sentence is purely unencyclopedic:
::''After the horrible events of Sept. 11, 2001, Arab-Americans braced for the worst, but thankfully the fears of heavy reprisals did not come as the vast majority of America realized they were not to blame.''
:Let's see... The '''horrible''' events! But '''thankfully''' the fears of '''heavy''' reprisal (what is light reprisal, what is heavy?) did not come! ...wait, what? The fears did not come? I think you wanted to say that the heavy reprisal did not come or that the fears did not come true (not that you supplied with a source for either claim), and as the article pointed out, there was a 15% increase in violence. If you think that's insignificant, that's a fairly bold position, and you better justify it with some hard data. If it was an increase from 20 to 23 cases, we could talk, but I somehow don't think we're talking about such small scales here. Until you provide proof for the insignificance of hard numbers, the hard numbers are more trustworthy than your opinion. And lastly, the '''vast majority''' of America realized they were not to blame... awwwwwww... too bad you failed to provide a source for your truly heartwarming tale. From what I remember and saw, things had been fairly tense, and opinions in America ranged from "We should not act hastily" to "Everybody looking anything like an Arab is the enemy". So making such bold claims about the "vast majority" of such a widely diverse and torn group ''really'' needs a trustworthy citation.
:Your edit might be suitable for an opinion column, but an encyclopedia should stick to the facts and to hard numbers. Opinions and consciously vague and uncited claims do not belong into the article. --[[User:JamesM|JamesM]] 18:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Provide numbers and we'll talk. Until then you're swinging in the breeze. I've seen general numbers on hate crimes and Arabs have been a very small part of that. 300 million people in America caused how many Arab deaths? It's not hard to do the math. Compare that to the countries they came from. Think they were used to enduring a little bit more? When Americans respond in a favorable way, we don't think it's necessary to spin it into a negative. Go somewhere else for that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::From a 2005 article, "At the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about 980 charges alleging post-9/11 backlash discrimination have been filed through June 11 since the 2001 attacks. Most involved firing and alleged harassment; the EEOC specifically tracks "backlash" cases, where employees claim discrimination relating to 9/11.

:::Likewise, religious bias charges are higher today than before 9/11. From Sept. 11, 2001, through June 11, the EEOC received 2,168 charges of discrimination based on an employee's Muslim religion. That compares with 1,104 such charges in the same time span before the attacks." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:(reply to "Learn together", choosing different indent level than the reply above) .......................wow. I'm absolutely horrified by the insane hoops I need to go through just to show that hard numbers are better than your whitewashed and completely uncited fairytale. Not even to mention that you really try to play down anti-Arab-American violence in any way possible (ratio of dead Arabs per US citizen, claiming how they're still better off in the US and apparently shouldn't complain about a rise in violence). Yeah, whatever then. One would think that the burden of proof would be on the guy who makes up vague claims and removes hard numbers, but your reply reads as if I'm the one making uncited opinion claims. But I guess you're the sysop (for whatever reason), so I'm wrong until I can fulfill your absolutely arbitrary requirements - even if my edit had facts and sources and yours didn't. I think I'll really consider going somewhere else if that's how this site works. --[[User:JamesM|JamesM]] 19:17, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::I'm removing the whitewash. Bye Bye -- If you can't see that America did a good job in the post 9/11 world, that's your concern. As for here, we'll stay with reality. I could see why you didn't want to post the numbers though. 140 extra issues per year, with a 15% increase would mean 20 extra issues over what was previously reported. In a nation of 300 million there was actually more than 1 extra case per month! Obviously a cause for great alarm! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::According to the article above, LT, in the time period from 9/11/01-7/11/05 there was a nearly 100% increase in the reports of employee discrimination based on religion from the same time period before 9/11. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Learn Together,
::::If he has numbers, than you should look at them. Also, He did nothing to deserve getting blocked. You can't just block anyone who disagrees with you. We don't (supposedly) do ideological blocks here.
::::To the other guys,
::::Could you please provide a source for your numbers?
::::--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Mine was from a USA Today article, but I've actually got better statistics that I'm going to be posting in the article now, from the U.S. Department of Justice. We're not talking a 15% increase, but a 1600% increase from 2000-2001.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Arab American <> Islam. . [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:05, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::''Most Arabs are Christian.'' - > Do you mean Arab Americans? either way, do you have a source? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 12:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I believe it was Newsweek. But aren't you ignoring what was stated above? Or do you believe they are synonymous? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::No, of course Arab and Muslim are not synonymous. After all, Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population, as everybody knows, and there are many Coptic and other Orthodox (and atheist) Arabs. But I'd be pretty surprised to find out that most Arabs are Christian, so let us know where that comes from.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 12:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::We were dealing with Arabs in America. Are there any other semantic tangents you need to go off on? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::If we're "dealing with Arabs in America" then you could have been more specific than to write "Most Arabs are Christian." [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 12:52, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

User:Iconoclastbeggar

2009-11-03T03:19:08Z

RMcKinely: Blanking blasphemous userpage of anti-christian liberal and possible sock. Page needs deletion. See the history.

Talk:Black liberation theology

2009-11-03T03:09:55Z

RMcKinely: Undo revision 716379 by RMcKinely (Talk)

Talk:Black liberation theology

2009-11-03T03:08:16Z

RMcKinely:

This movement is very much a part of [[black supremacism]], akin to [[white supremacism]]. There should be a seperate article for it.--[[User:RMcKinely|RMcKinely]] 22:08, 2 November 2009 (EST)

User:RMcKinely

2009-11-03T02:25:11Z

RMcKinely: Blanked the page

User:RMcKinely

2009-11-03T02:25:03Z

RMcKinely: Created page with 'Hello.'

Hello.

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christmas tree

Talk:Christmas tree

Talk:New International Version

Talk:Arab American

User:Iconoclastbeggar

Talk:Black liberation theology

Talk:Black liberation theology

User:RMcKinely

User:RMcKinely