Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-18T13:21:46Z

RossC:

I removed Robert E. Lee. He is ''not'' an American hero--he was a traitor who waged war against his country and his fellow citizens.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:I do understand your point of view; But, before removing Lee I would like to have the opinion of other editors or an honest debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:14, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::What's to debate? He fought for the enemy. He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of loyal American soldiers. If you're going to include Lee in the list, you might as well add Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, Adlrich Ames, Timothy McVeigh, and the 9/11 hijackers to the list.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::I'd agree that "American" hero doesn't quite fit Lee. While "traitor" is a bit strong, he led an armed rebellion AGAINST the United States... hardly rationale for calling the man a hero. [[User:PhilScheur|PhilScheur]] 16:47, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::To his credit, he came pretty close to being the next George Washington... but I agree, even if he'd won, he'd have been a confederate hero, not an American hero.
:::On a different note - removed Barry Bonds from the links section. With the scandals going on, he really isn't a good role model right now.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 15:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::There's one thing I don't understand about this page. Shouldn't the McCain picture not be so big? It's probably four times bigger than any other picture on there. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:31, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Because he's a big American hero--unlike that traitorous Lee. Let's stick to the issue, please.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 15:51, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Putting McCain ahead of ''Washington''? His image should be the same as the others, please. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I question actor [[Paul Newman]] and the notorious drug user [[Elvis Presley]]. They are famous; they are not heroes. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 17 December 2008 (EST)

==Peyton Manning==
First off, I question him as an American hero. Second, I wonder if we could find another picture? That's him in the pro-bowl and it looks like he's playing for the Arizona Cardinals. Maybe find one where he's in a Colts uniform? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:We need a separate category for sports idols. We can idolize someone for a reason other than [[heroism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That's a great idea, Ed. Good job on the picture, Joaquin. That looks much better! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote that page, see [[Gallery of Sports Idols]]. Add as needed. Also, does that mean we can start taking down the sports ones? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 12:58, 17 December 2008 (EST)

==Like To See==
[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 12:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
*schwarzkopf
*reagan
*alexander gram bell
*wright brothers
*john glenn
*Charles Lindbergh
*fdr
*susan b. anthony
*paul revere
*tomb of the unknown soldiers

:Good list, and the last one is particularly appropriate. One suggestion might be to categorize them (sports, military, leadership, science/discovery, etc.) In any case, I'd like to add the following:

:*The passengers of Flight 93 on Sept.11, 2001
:*The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.
:*Michael Phelps
:*Lance Armstrong
:*Jimmy Doolittle

:I'm sure more will follow once I think about this a bit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::"''The Police, Firefighters and EMT's who lost their lives helping others on 9/11/2001.''" - ...only the ones who died? I think I know what you were trying to get at, but the way you put it was a bit unfortunate. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 20:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:::Good point. It should say "who risked their lives", which is more inclusive. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::*Pat Tillman--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)

== Elvis and Paul Newman are American Heroes, but adding [[Phyllis Schlafly]] gets you a three month block? ==

I think this article just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589385&oldid=589250 proved] to be a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABrianF&year=&month=-1 minefield.]

Could a sysop give a definition of "American Hero" before more people get blocked for making one wrong addition here? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

: What is a [[hero]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::That was my question (<s>and I find it somewhat odd that the sysop who made a judgment call in this issue ''also'' asks it</s> No, scratch that. I only now noticed that it was you who added most of those definitions just today, so I guess this wasn't an actual question.), but since you gave a link...
::*A hero is a [...] figure who is a person of virtue
::*They usually believe in honour and have strong morals.
::*A person noted for special achievement in a particular field
::*A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
::While Phyllis may not have fulfilled every single one of them (even though I'm not familiar with her detailed biography, so maybe she did indeed fulfill them all), I would say she easily qualifies. But I'm sure you had your reasons for declaring her addition to be "moronic vandalism"... right? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:54, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::: Who was supposedly blocked 3 months for that? Often blocks take into consideration the totality of the edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)

::::BrianF. See the links in the opening posts, plus [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BrianF contribs] list. This was the only edit since December 4, and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_American_Heroes&diff=589441&oldid=589385 reverted] here. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 23:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)
::::::The "user" in question was a sock of a person from (how to put this...) a website which does not have CP's best interests at heart. Furthermore, the now-reverted addition was done at the behest of persons at said website, intended as parody. I'd post a link to the discussion of all this, but that would likely be inappropriate.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-17T15:16:42Z

RossC: oops...

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:John kennedy.jpg|[[John F. Kennedy]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|300px]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==
*[[Founding Fathers]]
*[[Hank Aaron]]
*[[Mickey Mantle]]
*[[Joe Louis]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]
*[http://www.foundingfathers.info/ The Founding Fathers home page.]

[[Category:United States History]]

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-17T15:16:11Z

RossC: Upgrading from see also

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:John kennedy.jpg|[[John F. Kennedy]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|300px]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==
*[[Founding Fathers]]
*[[Hank Aaron]]
*[[Mickey Mantle]]
*[[Joe Louis]]
*[[John F. Kennedy]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]
*[http://www.foundingfathers.info/ The Founding Fathers home page.]

[[Category:United States History]]

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-17T15:06:05Z

RossC: Washington, Lincoln, and Taylor Hicks? No.

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|300px]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==
[[Image:John kennedy.jpg|thumb|John F. Kennedy.]]
*[[Founding Fathers]]
*[[Hank Aaron]]
*[[Mickey Mantle]]
*[[Joe Louis]]
*[[John F. Kennedy]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]
*[http://www.foundingfathers.info/ The Founding Fathers home page.]

[[Category:United States History]]

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-17T13:58:36Z

RossC: There doesn't seem to be any particular disagreement to rmvl of Lee--so that's what I'll do...

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg|300px]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==
[[Image:John kennedy.jpg|thumb|John F. Kennedy.]]
*[[Founding Fathers]]
*[[Hank Aaron]]
*[[Mickey Mantle]]
*[[Joe Louis]]
*[[John F. Kennedy]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]
*[http://www.foundingfathers.info/ The Founding Fathers home page.]

[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T20:51:03Z

RossC:

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T20:03:00Z

RossC: What's to debate?

Talk:Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T16:43:46Z

RossC: explanation of change

I removed Robert E. Lee. He is ''not'' an American hero--he was a traitor who waged war against his country and his fellow citizens.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Gallery of American Heroes

2008-12-16T16:41:54Z

RossC: removed Lee

'''Gallery of American Heroes'''
[[Image:The babe.jpg|thumb|[[Babe Ruth]]]]
{{Clear}}
<center>
<gallery perrow="5">
Image:Benjamin.jpg|[[Benjamin Franklin]]
Image:George washington 3.jpg|[[George Washington]]
Image:John adams.gif|[[John Adams]]
Image:Daniel Boone.jpg|[[Daniel Boone]]
Image:TCJJ.jpg|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
Image:7648ruy6g.gif|[[James Madison]]
Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|[[Andrew Jackson]]
Image:Zachary taylor.jpg|[[Zachary Taylor]]
Image:Davy Crockett.jpg|[[Davy Crockett]]
Image:Lincoln.jpg|[[Abraham Lincoln]]

Image:Elizabethcadystanton.jpg|[[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]]
Image:Freddouglas.jpg|[[Frederick Douglass]]
Image:3a10453r.jpg|[[Harriet Tubman]]
Image:Ulysses grant.jpg|[[Ulysses S. Grant]]
Image:875997.jpg|[[Thomas Edison]]
Image:Macarthur1.jpg|[[Douglas MacArthur]]
Image:Yte7567.jpg|[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg|[[Louis Armstrong]]
Image:RosaParks.jpg|[[Rosa Parks]]
Image:Jesse Owens.jpg|[[Jesse Owens]]
Image:Archie Moore.jpg|[[Archie Moore]].
Image:Ted Williams 1847...jpg|[[Ted Williams]]
Image:Jackie Robinson in Dodgers uniform, 1954..jpg|[[Jackie Robinson]]
Image:Paul-newman.jpg|[[Paul Newman]]
Image:Martin Luther King Jr Washington DC. 1963.jpg|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr.

Image:NeilArmstrong.jpg|[[Neil Armstrong]]
Image:Aloha6.jpg|[[Elvis Presley]]
Image:Muhammad Ali..jpg|[[Muhammad Ali]]
Image:Michael Jordan.jpg|[[Michael Jordan]]
</gallery>

[[Image:Casmier.jpg]]

[[John McCain]]
</center>

== See also ==

*[[Hank Aaron]]
*[[Barry Bonds]]

== External links ==

*[http://usa-hero.com/ American Heroes Who Inspire the World]

[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-14T03:18:59Z

RossC: color me confused

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-11T03:02:39Z

RossC: reply to Andy and Liam

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

''"Many Christians believe etc."''
What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell.
We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is '''used''' (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

: Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven in the authentic passages, with Jesus as judge. In this phony passage, however, Jesus refuses to judge and the woman never asks for forgiveness. Based on the authentic passages, she's headed for Hell. Based on the phony passage, she's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Regardless of whether you agree with other users or not, we do ''not'' tolerate personal insults on this encyclopedia, Jalast Jeweler. Please keep it civil and objective. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:11, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==a new kettle o' fish==
I'm starting a new subsection here to explain the changes I just made to the article, and also to bypass the fussiness above, and perhaps have an actual discussion on the merits, as it were.
*I changed "authenticity has been rejected by modern biblical scholars" to "authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars" because a bit of research on the issue showed me that a few scholars think the story is totally bogus, many think it the story is accurate but misplaced, and a fair number think the story is accurate and correctly placed. Therefore, to say or imply that all agree that the story is bogus is just plain wrong.
*I indicated somewhere above that I have indeed heard (as Andy wrote) various folks use this passage as an argument against capital punishment, and a few use it to argue against Hell in general. However, the most recent assertion that some use it to "argue against opposition to sinful behavior...(including) permissiveness to alternative lifestyles, desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful" is just ludicrous--I've never heard anyone ever argue anything like that, ever. If that's going to be in the article, you're going to need some serious cites. Therefore, I changed it back to something like Andy first wrote (which still includes his supporting cite).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Your second point is fine, but your first point is simply not accurate. The overwhelming consensus is that the passage is not authentic, and all modern versions of the Bible confirm this as well as all or nearly all biblical scholars across the political spectrum. Our description will reflect that, and I'm changing it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::To avoid any contention this may cause, could either of you provide citings? That way we could be sure and add them to the article, rather than just asserting either way. --[[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, can I ask how you're defining "authentic"? I know that the Catholic Church views this passage as canonical. And Liam, I'll try to find and post some of what I've been reading, but I'll do that tomorrow, as it is past my bedtime....--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-11T02:25:46Z

RossC: reasons for changes

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-11T02:24:39Z

RossC: punctuation

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

:New American Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

:Holman Christian Standard Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.}}

:New International Version:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.}}

:New Revised Standard Version:
{{QuoteBox|Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

:New American Bible: For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

:New International Version: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

:New Revised Standard Version: For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

:New American Bible: ... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

:New International Version: ... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: ... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.

:New Revised Standard Version: ... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:The Message: .... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

:New International Version: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

:New American Bible: "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me."

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: "When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me."

:New Revised Standard Version: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf."

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11, though its authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars, as it is absent in the earliest surviving biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on [[Hell]] and is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref> How do the different translations of the Bible treat this passage?

:New International Version: The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.

:New American Bible: 7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].

:New Revised Standard Version: The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father''.

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-11T02:23:21Z

RossC: see talk in a few...

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

:New American Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

:Holman Christian Standard Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.}}

:New International Version:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.}}

:New Revised Standard Version:
{{QuoteBox|Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

:New American Bible: For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

:New International Version: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

:New Revised Standard Version: For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

:New American Bible: ... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

:New International Version: ... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: ... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.

:New Revised Standard Version: ... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:The Message: .... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

:New International Version: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

:New American Bible: "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me."

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: "When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me."

:New Revised Standard Version: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf."

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11, though its authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars, as it is absent in the earliest surviving biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]. "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on [[Hell]] and is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref> How do the different translations of the Bible treat this passage?

:New International Version: The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.

:New American Bible: 7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].

:New Revised Standard Version: The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father''.

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-11T02:22:00Z

RossC: see talk in a few...

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

:New American Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

:Holman Christian Standard Bible:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.}}

:New International Version:
{{QuoteBox|... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.}}

:New Revised Standard Version:
{{QuoteBox|Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.}}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

:New American Bible: For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

:New International Version: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

:New Revised Standard Version: For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

:New American Bible: ... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

:New International Version: ... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: ... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.

:New Revised Standard Version: ... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

:The Message: .... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

:New International Version: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

:New American Bible: "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me."

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: "When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me."

:New Revised Standard Version: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf."

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11, though its authenticity and placement have been disputed by many modern biblical scholars, as it is absent in the earliest surviving biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against opposition to sinful behavior. This includes permissiveness to [[homosexuality|"alternative lifestyles"]], desecration and belittlement of Christianity and Christians by the unfaithful. However, Jesus does instruct the woman to "go and sin no more." <ref>John 8:11 KJB</ref>

The passage is also quoted in arguments against [[capital punishment]]. "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on [[Hell]] and is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref> How do the different translations of the Bible treat this passage?

:New International Version: The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.

:New American Bible: 7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.

:Holman Christian Standard Bible: Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].

:New Revised Standard Version: The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father''.

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-09T19:10:38Z

RossC: Adulteress story

Spring Valley Community Church

2008-12-04T00:13:02Z

RossC: removing commercial message

'''Spring Valley Community Church''' is a [[ministry]] of the [[Reformed Church]] in [[America]] and holds to the basic creeds and doctrines of that denomination, and is located in Allendale, [[Michigan]].
[[Category:Churches]]

Fertility clinic

2008-12-04T00:08:31Z

RossC: no fewer than any other, I reckon...

A '''fertility clinic''' is a specialized [[clinic]] where couples who are having trouble [[sexual reproduction|procreating]] can go for help. Clinics of this type offer a number of services, including, but not limited to, [[in vitro fertilization]], [[infertility]] testing, [[embryo]] freezing, [[egg]] donation, and [[surgery]] for infertility.

[[category:medicine]]

Animal Terms H

2008-12-03T23:49:01Z

RossC: more for the list

{{Animals Index}}
List of animals beginning with "H"

*[[Hamster]]
*[[Hare]]
*[[Hawk]]
*[[Hedgehog]]
*[[Hen]]
*[[Heron]]
*[[Hippopotamus]]
*[[Homo habilis]]
*[[Horse]]
*[[Hyena]]

Animal Terms E

2008-12-03T23:45:36Z

RossC: more for the list

{{Animals Index}}
List of animals beginning with "E"
*[[Eagle]]
*[[Egret]]
*[[Elephant]]
*[[Elk]]
*[[Emu]]
[[category:biology]]

Animal Terms D

2008-12-03T23:43:30Z

RossC: more for the list

{{Animals Index}}
List of animals beginning with "D"
*[[Deer]]
*[[Dingo]]
*[[Dinosaur]]
*[[Dog]]
*[[Dog]]
*[[Dolphin]]
*[[Dove]]
*[[Dragonfly]]
*[[Dromedary]]
*[[Duck]]

[[category:biology]]

Animal Terms A

2008-12-03T23:40:24Z

RossC: more for the list

{{Animals Index}}
List of animals beginning with "A"
*[[Aardvark]]
*[[Alligator]]
*[[Alpaca]]
*[[Anaconda]]
*[[Ant]]
*[[Anteater]]
*[[Antelope]]
*[[Armadillo]]
*[[Arthropod]]
[[category:biology]]

Animal Terms F

2008-12-03T23:36:15Z

RossC: additions to list

{{Animals Index}}
List of animals beginning with "F"
*[[Falcon]]
*[[Ferret]]
*[[Finch]]
*[[Fish]]
*[[Flamingo]]
*[[Fox]]
*[[Frog]]
[[category:biology]]

Matthew Shepard

2008-12-03T23:26:49Z

RossC: "claimed", not "admitted"

'''Matthew Shepard''' (1976-1998) was an American college student from [[Wyoming]]. On October 7th, 1998, he was savagely beaten and robbed by two men, and died on October 12th. The killers were heavily involved in drugs and had met Shepard in a bar, giving him a ride afterwards.

[[Homosexual]] activists converted this drug-related killing <ref>Ben Fritzen, a former police detective, said, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide... What it came down to, really, is drugs and money." [http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070810/EDITORIAL/108100014/1013/editorial Washington Times Editorial] 8/10/2007 </ref> into a [[hate crime]] even though the prosecution never described the killing as a hate crime.<ref name="courttv">http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/110399_verdict_ctv.html</ref> Activists claimed even before the details of the crime were known that the murder was due to anti-gay bias. Once the crime was discovered, Shepard's friends "were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."<ref name="20/20" />

A misguided defense of one of the killers tried to make an issue of Shepard's [[homosexuality]] in order to employ a ""gay panic defense" based upon the defendant's alleged prior homosexual experiences, but this was rejected by the judge.<ref name="courttv"/> In fact, at least one of Shepard's killers claimed in an interview on ABC's "20/20" that money and drugs motivated their actions that night, not hatred of gays.<ref name="20/20">[http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1 20/20 News Story on Matthew Shepard]</ref> One of the girlfriends of the accused testified that they had planned to pretend to be homosexuals so that they could rob Shepard.<ref name="courttv"/>

Ever since Shepard's death it has been cited by homosexual activists to promote legislation to classify attacks against homosexuals as a [[hate crime]] that would be punished more severely than a crime against a heterosexual. All legislation, both in Wyoming and on the national level, has failed, but under [[Democratic]] leadership the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] passed a hate crimes bill in 2007.<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/31008.html</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] has vowed to veto it.

== External links ==
*[http://homes.thedailycamera.com/extra/shepard/ Matthew Shepard Murder] The Daily Camera.

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shepard, Matthew}}

[[category:Americans]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-27T17:37:35Z

RossC: too sense

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-27T16:24:25Z

RossC: small point

{{Controversial}}

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Based on the idea that a "[[Muslim]]" is someone who is "[[submission|submissive]]" to the will of God, I would say that many Christians and Jews can therefore (loosely) be described as Muslim. Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?

Don't play on fears that all Muslims are terrorists; that is illogical, even if it is true that most recent anti-Western terrorists are part of the [[Islamic civilization]].

I object to anyone trying to impose a single view on matters of controversy. It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim". I helped to champion Wikipedia's NPOV policy (until liberals decided to abandon it), and it would be a good idea to try it out here - instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:"''Why do you make it sound like being Muslim is a bad thing?'': It's nonsense to suggest that that is ''all'' "being a Muslim" entails.
:"''It would be wrong, Philip, to insist that "it is not true that Obama is a Muslim".''": Ignoring for the moment that I'm not actually making that claim, why would it be wrong to insist that, ''if it '''is''' wrong''?
: Now back to the point that I'm not actually making that claim. Has it escaped your attention that it is Andy, not me, that is making the absolutist claim? Until your last edit to the article, it said unequivocally that "Obama is a Muslim". It is ''me'' who has being trying to remove that claim, and ''Andy'' who has been insisting on it. So why are you directing your comments at ''me''? I am ''not'' claiming that "Obama is not a Muslim". Rather, I'm claiming that there's no good evidence that he is a Muslim, and a fair bit of evidence that he is not, so therefore the article should not claim that he is. You seem to agree, having (at least twice, I think) changed the article to remove that absolute statement, yet you are directing you criticisms at me, rather than the person insisting that a particular view ''is'' true. Why the double standard?
: "''...instead of making bad-tempered personal attacks.''": Along the same line, how about you direct your comments to the person/people calling me names ("liberal") and repeatedly side-stepping the argument with irrelevancies instead of (or even as well as, if you prefer) criticising me who is being repeatedly ignored, misrepresented, and called names?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Philip, I never made an "absolutist" claim in the entry that "Obama is a Muslim." There is compelling factual evidence that Obama is a Muslim. But your deletions (censorship) were of factual evidence, not of an absolutist claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

A "renegade" is a ''deserter'' of a cause, so '''if''' Obama was actually raised as a muslim, and '''if''' the codename has any non-arbitrary significance, it would be evidence that he is '''not''' a muslim, rather than the other way around.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:27, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::''I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue'' Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, an old Liberal trick. Yagain, Philip, you fail to get the point. You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. This is both arrogant and wrong. You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence. Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed) is an attempt to muddy the waters. Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here. And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'. You have not answered it, and you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree. Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that. We cannot 'prove' our beliefs; proof will only come should our fears bbe realised. Is that a reason to remain silent? Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate? We are not dogmatic. We are raising fears based on a prime facie assessment of Obama's record and behaviour; we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs. But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism. You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts. And such an attitude is insupportable; especially insupportable as arrogance of belief is leading you into arrogance of behaviour. Throw slurs at me, by all means. But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour. Learn discipline, as you should have learned it in your youth. The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''. Andy has quite correctly made a decision, to stop the ceaseless argument. And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision; and if you cannot bring yourself to back it openly, then to leave this topic and work on other matters in which you are interested. Display loyalty and work hard. Do not display defiance, do not keep attacking and undermining the leadership. Remember the objectives of Conservapedia, read the Commandments, and do your best to support Conservapedia and support Andy Schlafly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: "''Ah, the old 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic''": No, it's not, actually. That is a question with no correct answer. I didn't ask a question.
::::::::::::: "''You claim that all your assertions are 'proved' and that no-one else's ideas are. ''": Incorrect. I said that my 'assertions' have been backed by logic and evidence, whereas the opposing ideas haven't been. That's not to say that there is no evidicence that can be used to support them; it's saying that such evidence has not been offered.
::::::::::::: "''This is both arrogant and wrong.''": It's not arrogant if it's true, and you've not shown it to be wrong.
::::::::::::: "''You are the only one making assertions that 'X is fact',a nd you fail to provide any satisfactory evidence.''": On the contrary, as I've just posted to Ed above, it is Andy and people such as you who are claiming that 'x is a fact' (Obama is a Muslim), whereas I'm saying that 'there's little or no evidence that x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''Your further claims of legitimacy through supported from a shadowy clique of 'senior administrators' (unnamed)...''": You asked for their names, and I pointed out to you that many of them had been named on this page, so you have no good excuse for this false statement.
::::::::::::: "''Those who disagree with you, including Andy, also have support, from senior people here.''": I guess it depends on how you define "senior", but apart from editors with block rights, I haven't seen one.
::::::::::::: "''And we are not saying 'X is fact'; we are saying 'here is a case to answer'.''": Blatantly wrong. As I just said to Ed above, until his last edit, the article said "Obama is a Muslim". That ''is'' saying 'x is a fact'.
::::::::::::: "''You have not answered it...''": I have, a number of times.
::::::::::::: "''...you actions in constantly reverting these passages amounts to an attempt to censor opinions with which you disagree.''": I have pointed out numerous times that it is incorrect to call it censorship (and nobody has refuted that), and I've also pointed out that we are talking about truth claims, not ''opinions''. This is the sort of reason that you appear to have a closed mind. These sorts of things have been explained before, without being refuted, yet you keep repeating these discredited claims.
::::::::::::: "''Saying that we 'have not proved our point' is disingenuous, and you know that.''": Incorrect.
::::::::::::: "''We cannot 'prove' our beliefs;...''": These are ''truth claims'', not just "beliefs". And if they were just "beliefs", then they should be presented as such, not as truth claims.
::::::::::::: "''Had I believed that the Japanese might attack Pearl Harbor, based on an educated reading of the situation in November 1941, should I have remained silent because a proto-Rayment demanded written proof in triplicate?''": False analogy, because that's nothing like what I'm claiming, nor is the comparison the same.
::::::::::::: "''We are not dogmatic.''": Saying that "Obama is a Muslim", and resisting all attempts to remove bad evidence ''is'' being dogmatic.
::::::::::::: "''...we are not claiming that these are facts carbved in granite slabs.''": Essentially you are.
::::::::::::: "''But you, Philip, are displaying liberal dogmatism.''": Oh, so the dogmatism (that ''you'' are displaying) is "liberal", is it?
::::::::::::: "'' You say that your beliefs are not beliefs, but facts.''": Where exactly did I say that?
::::::::::::: "''But do not insult Andy, who is the founder of this project and our respected leader in this great endeavour.''": Even though he is insulting me, calling me names? Are you suggesting that I should not follow his example?
::::::::::::: "''The question has been debated ''ad nauseam''.''": Yes, with the only substantial evidence being ''against'' Obama being a Muslim.
::::::::::::: "'' And it would be seemly for you to accept and comply with this decision...''": Ignoring Commandment 1?
::::::::::::: In summary, yet again another long claim that your side is supported, yet with no actual support offered at all, despite you raising the point of testing the claims. You've mostly avoided answering the points I raised with you, instead launching into another lengthy criticism. Yes, that "closed mind" comment seems to have been justified.
::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:22, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: RodWeathers, unlike some you support here, I don't ban people for "saying [your] piece to an admin", as long as that is done civilly.
:::::::::::: I did not, however, say what you accused me of. That is, I did not accuse your opinions of being illogical. Rather, I said that you'd only offered opinions, not logical argument nor evidence. That is not an attack on your character nor intelligence; merely stating facts that all you have offered is opinion. I never claimed to have a monopoly on logic, but logic is not whatever we want it to be; logic is a reasoned way of arguing, and simply offering the opinion that something is correct is ''not'' logic. And no, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of stupidity. I'm accusing you of only offering opinion, not logic nor evidence. I will qualify that a little by saying that I haven't analysed ''your'' comments in particular, but I have read them (any that have been posted in reply to discussions I've had), and I've noted that nobody has actually offered logical argument nor evidence supporting the claims that I've repeatedly removed from the article. And neither have you in this response.
:::::::::::: You accuse me of accusing Andy (and others) of deception, yet I ''specifically'' said in the earlier post that I directed you to that I don't believe Andy would deliberately deceive!
:::::::::::: As for casting doubt on his Christianity, if you were following this debate you would realise that I've never disputed that there is some doubt about his Christianity. What I'm disputing is that he is a Muslim. You also say that "we" conclude that he is "quite possibly" a Muslim, yet the article states that he ''is'' a Muslim; no "quite possibly" about it.
:::::::::::: At the end of your post you repeat the claims that the claims about Obama being a Muslim are "not conjecture and it is not POV", yet ''still'' do nothing to substantiate that!
:::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, you're welcome to "disput[e] that [Obama] is a Muslim." But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that. [[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views. You say you're not a liberal, but you do support gun control and you have insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an atheistic view. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single politically conservative position that you've taken in nearly two years here, but perhaps there are some. Regardless, we're not going to censor here evidence about the beliefs of a president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:18, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::: "''But we're not going to censor evidence that you and other Obama defenders are wrong about that''": First, I'm not an "Obama defender". I have a number of objections to him. Second, in what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: "''[[Liberal]]s inevitably demand censorship of ideas that challenge their views.''": Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that everyone who demands censorship is a liberal, and I've already rejected that removing false and irrelevant information is censorship.
:::::::::::::: "''You say you're not a liberal...''": Yes, I do, but more importantly, how is that relevant? Talking about ''my beliefs'' rather than ''the issue at hand'' is an ''ad hominem'' argument—a ''logically invalid'' argument. An argument typically used by people who have no valid argument. Why don't you stick to the issue?
:::::::::::::: So let's get back to the real question: In what way are we wrong?
:::::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: As LowKey correctly points out below, by saying "We're seeing an illustration of that here...", then you ''are'' calling me a liberal, which is a lot more inappropriate than some bolding to grab your attention. Further, if you didn't mean it, you could have simply said "I didn't mean to call you a liberal; I don't think you are", but no, instead you try and justify the name-calling that you also attempt to deny! So I still expect an apology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Philip, see point 55 in [[liberal style]] about demands for apologies, which was written long ago.

::::::::::::: You're more than welcome to your views and we welcome many liberals to this site. But you've advocated for [[gun control]] here and insisted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (which is an atheistic viewpoint). So I don't doubt that you hold some liberal beliefs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::*point 55 in [[liberal style]] refers to ''silly demands for apologies.'' I can't see anything silly on Philip J. Rayment's demand.
::::::::::::::*AFAIK, Philip J. Rayment never advocated [[gun control]] '''in the U.S.'''. However, as an Australian conservative, he's for gun control '''in Australia'''.
::::::::::::::*I don't know how aesthetics come into play here, but for the record: yes, there may be absolute beauty, but for the sake of the fashion industry, our view of the beauty of a lot of things changes
::::::::::::::*And for the record: I'm not a liberal, neither, though I'm for gun control in my home country - but I don't want to export this model to the U.S. Have a look on the stance of the Catholic Church against capital punishment. Does this make the pope a liberal? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you are veering quite far off-topic here, a very liberal trait. You also are resorting to personal attacks, another liberal trait. You are also denying that PJR's evidence is intrinsically valuable, which is apparently an atheistic viewpoint. Are you a closet liberal?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:JZim was blocked for this comment. Does anyone else see a problem? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:12, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::No, and anyone who does should have the personal integrity to resign. Talk, talk, talk, without contributing isn't allowed, never has been. That user signed up this month, and constantly engaged in argument and time wasting. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::: Personal attacks and accusations, troublemaking, mimicry, and absurd suggestions of atheism. I gave him 3 days to cool off. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:24, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::But do you plan to give Schlafly a three day block also? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::When he starts mimicing other users, making trouble while contributing nothing to discussion, and I'm capable of doing so, I'll consider it. Can we please leave it at that?[[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:29, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Maybe only 2 days as there was no mimicry from Andy, and "troublemaking" would be stretch. The rest applies, though.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]]
::::::Hmm. Mimicing others is really not a valid block reason per se. You also said he was blocked for personal attacks, accusations and absurd suggestions of atheism. Can you just unblock JZim? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Done. I'll leave it to the discretion of highers-up, but if you have a problem with Aschlafly, bring it up with ''him'', not me. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why disclaim calling Phillip a liberal, and only provide half of the statement (only the latest) you made which did exaclty that. You said "At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here," in response to Phillip's post. You are directly ascribing liberal beliefs - which you had already made clear means political liberal beliefs - to Phillip. So yes you are calling him a liberal. If you wish to back away from that, the way to do it is to retract and apologise, not qualify and dilute.

Also, when you claim that pronouncing Pakistan the '''correct''' way is evidence that one is muslim, objections based on truth and relevance are not calls for censorship. They are merely calls for truth and relevance. (Really, such "evidence" is absurd) I notice a late addition to the "evidence" deals with Obama's popularity with muslim voters. If we saw a similar pattern amongst female voters, that would not be evidence that Obama is a woman. None of this is evidence that leads to a conclusion; these factoids (i.e. they are shaped kind like of facts) read as little more than exhibits for the prosecution.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Many would say that the only way we can arrive at a true and complete picture of any politician is to take a look at their life before gaining elected office. Once running for office, or on that merry-go-round of always running for re-election, how is anyone to gain a glimpse of the real person? Every bit of information, once elected (especially as President) is so managed, so structured, a true picture can never be painted. With President-elect Obama, there are more unanswered questions than anyone I can think of elected President in modern times. Life isn't fair, and no matter if Obama's supporters dislike the continued inquiry, they should blame Obama and his people, not those seeking answers. If they had categorically answered answered, or permitted the release of his personal information, this all might have been put to rest. But they have continued to stone-wall. Isn't it odd, and indicative of [[liberal deceit]] that personal [[privacy]] is very important to liberals in their own personal lives, but they cherish that of the citizens much less! The reliance upon birth announcements in newspapers, and generic record of live birth, instead of releasing the actual, unaltered birth certificate to prove citizenship, differs from the records available on other modern presidents. The fact that Barack Obama didn't ask the Department of State to make public the travel records of his mom and dad is also cause for concern. Unless and until all information is made available by Mr. Obama, the inquiries Andy speaks of will continue, as that is the responsible course for encyclopedias and scholars who always take the long view, rather than focus on the passions of the here and now. This whole tempest is about those who don't want to hear or think about the possibilities, people willing to sell the truth short because of their political or world view bias. Scholars, and scholarly encyclopedias ask questions, and don't state as factual anything that lacks full disclosure, like Obama's religious instruction and training, his place of true birth, and his questionable associations. Conservatives fight for the truth, [[liberals]] seek to obsfucate and dismiss intellectual curiosity, always demanding "facts" that cannot be readily produced because the subject of the questions refuses to own up. Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Sweeping assertions do not make themselves true. "Inquiry" is seeming less and less appropriate for this. "Inquisition" would be more accurate, for one knowing the Spanish Inquisition's main objective (finding closet infidels). I have looked at my position (truth and relevance) and the conservative shoe is rather a nice fit, thank you. Presenting pronunciation, birth name, parental beliefs and voting patterns as evidence of any person's current belief is not presenting information in any useful way at all. It is demonstrating a conclusion that is looking for support. If the facts are not readily available, do not present irrelevant factoids in their place. I ''believe'' Obama's stated Christianity to be "liberal" and largely nominal, and probably politically motivated. But none of the "evidence" presented here has led (or would led) me to that conclusion, it is too weak and strident. There is much more concrete evidence to question Rudd's (PM of Australia) Christianity, but I do not see any of that on his CP article. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:10, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_logic|"Claiming that their viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents."] is #3 on the list of [[Liberal logic]] When it was about Sarah Palin or John McCain, where were the calls to end inquiry, being less and less "appropriate"? By United States standards, even self-proclaimed conservatives wouldn't be regarded as conservatives here. Asking questions, raising questions, is what an encyclopedia does, or as Andy stated: ''"Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding."'' This isn't a debating society, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. The fact that supposedly "trusted editors" won't end this revert war, nor step back from this issue, is yet another sign (for most of us) of [[Liberal Deceit]]. Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters. I consider Andy Schlafly a trusted friend. Do we ever disagree? Anyone who has been around CP knows we have! But I have never repeatedly (or otherwise) reverted his work, instructed him on how my opinion made his wrong, how my thinking was logical, and his was not. The fact that so much of this time-wasting by an Administrator is allowed is more than proof as to how open-minded and indulgent Andy is, and the continued opposition, in repeated public displays of disrespect is unseemly, and certainly not reflective of American conservative values. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Your first sentence just confuses me, as the claims of "censorship" here are claims of "liberal censorship". So apart from being a hand-waving sweeping generalisation, it also seems to be a malapropism. Also, you seem to have misunderstood my "inquiry" comment. I am not saying that inquiry is inappropriate (intelligent inquiry, at any rate). I am saying that "inquiry" is an inappropriate term for what is going on here. I suggest "inquisition" as the correct term, referring to the fact the the Spanish Inquisition was undertaken to identify and prosecute secret infidels claiming to be Christian. Are you accusing Andy or PJR of liberal deceit? They are the two editors reverting, that I can see, so it must be one of them. Given that PJR gives reasons for removal and ''asks for'' reasons for inclusions, but Andy generally keeps claiming "liberal censorship" (but insists that he is ''not'' calling PJR a liberal), and your earlier observation about liberal logic one could conclude that you are refering to Andy. Now I don't think that that is the correct conclusion, but it ''is'' the conclusion that most closely matches the facts (i.e. every other conclusion makes '''less''' sense). Let's build an encyclopedia; let the inquiry be ''intelligent'' and factual; let real, relevant facts speak for themselves; avoid prosecutorial exhibits, avoid insisting on the most condemnatory interpretations when other interpretations are far more likely. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::: "''Being a conservative also means respecting the authority of the powers that be. In being Christians, we are taught to submit to authority on earthly matters.''": Whose authority does Andy submit to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::*Philip, Andy Schlafly is the owner of this site. ''Here, he submits to no one''. And that is how it should be. If you are meaning generally, in his life, as a Christian, he submits, offers up to Jesus Christ and his Father In Heaven, who has the final "say" on everything. While one can appeal to Andy, one has absolutely no right to continue to question (or dispute) his will as to CP, especially as an Administrator, and publicly. Contrary to your false and misleading assertion on your talk page, ''"As administrators, we enforce the rules, we don't decide the truth. That is exceeding our authority."'' you have constantly done so, and continue to do so on this page. Please don't tempt me to present evidence of such, okay? I think Andy has been more than a good sport on this issue, but it is long past the time you should walk away from this, because your [[liberal]] opinion is not going to prevail. Perhaps you could concentrate on presenting scientific, or even good & irrefutable empirical evidence for the age of Earth? You have been using (trading on) your position as an Administrator of Conservapedia to continue to argue beyond the point any "normal" editor would be allowed to without being blocked by you or one of the other administrators. Your lack of humility, which is a Christian trait, has become an embarrassment. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:21, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::::::And what happened to Matthew 7:1, which certainly can be applied hear in the same way that you yourself have applied it? [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:::::And the accusations continue. How is objecting to repeated condescending false accusations a lack of humility? Phillip attempted to keep this about the content of the article, but Andy's responses have either been to repeat assertions without support (or even argument) or (even worse) to use ad hominem dismissals to avoid addressing the objections. And you call that being a good sport? As to your comment about humility: speck, meet plank.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:00, 26 November 2008 (EST)

*Philip seems to have retired from his stubborn insistence to revert the owner of this encyclopedia, and my suggestion to you, LowKey is that you should now become just that: low key. CP's toleration of argument-without-end is becoming lower and lower because of non-discussions like this one. If you want to continue as you have been, why not go to Wikipedia and endeavor to engage Mr. Wells as you have Mr. Schlafly here? I very much doubt you would still be an editor there after so doing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:08, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:*I ''am'' an editor on WP and my evangelical Christian (and hence conservative) standards - including my insistence on truth and relevance - get me labelled a fringe lunatic. It's interesting that '''the same''' standards get one labelled a liberal on CP. The difference is that on WP my Christian views are at least dismissed because they are Christian views, while on CP it seems that disagreement need only be labelled "liberal" do be dismissed regardless of the facts. I have seen almost as much prejudice and bigotry here as on WP, and considering the comparative sizes of the two sites, that's a serious indictment of the general enviromnent on CP. It's depressing that in this confessedly Christian environment fellow Christians are treated worse than they are treated by the misotheists on WP. I think I need a break (and here I though CP would be ''refreshing''.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::Funny you should put it like that, because most of us can't quite believe that you're still an editor here after your SDG shenanigans. --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::*While liberals have proved to be interested in retribution, attacking people personally and [[deceit]], JohnZ, Christians and conservatives believe in forgiveness. I understand why you "can't quite believe", because you just don't believe in anything other than material things. And while conservatives believe in ''facts'', from your comments, being on the outside looking in, liberals offer comments and supposition about things they cannot possibly know about first-hand. God's speed to you! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:37, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::Hmm. Even if it's forgiven, my money's on it not being forgotten. You speak to TerryH much these days, TK? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:50, 26 November 2008 (EST)

== ==

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Is it wrong that I find this amusing?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:::Liberals often are easily amused. Or at least they pretend to be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::::Andy, you are quite quick to assume that anyone you either disagree with or simply do not understand is a liberal. You display a profound inability to read user pages (read mine), at the very least. What I find amusing is that this obvious parody has not been deleted, as parodies usually are. And are you claiming that I am pretending to be amused? Why would I pretend? I have no reason to lie, and I have no wish to assume that anyone else is, either. I would, instead, examine the evidence. I would advise you to do the same. I believe, as well, that I recently read something written by someone who apparently opposed you, in which he exhorted you to refrain from bearing false witness against others. Please do not disrespect the teachings of Jesus; I respect them very much and would like to see them respected by others. Lastly, I apologise for my long-winded reply, but I think it is necessary.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:But why would the two Muslims I consulted believe this? One was a Democrat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:41, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This is not Wikipedia, and sysops may remove any information which is not related to the purpose of building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:46, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I dislike reading remarks like the following:
*I'm accusing you of only offering opinion
*Look at what your position is, and if the (liberal) shoe fits, wear it.
*unlike some you support here, I don't ban people
*way to do it is to retract and apologise
*you accused me
*you are calling him a liberal
*You say you're not a liberal

Those who recall writing any of the above phrases, please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Well "way to do it is to retract and apologise" is mine, and it was not a personal remark. In context (i.e. the rest of the sentence ''at least''), I was saying that if an editor wanted to back away from remarks made about and objected to by another editor, then the "way to do it is to retract and apologise" rather than retroactively qualify the remarks.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:16, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:And this is related to Barack Obama in what way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: How about Andy calling me a liberal? Why don't you list ''that'' as a "personal remark"? Further, there is a difference between a "personal remark" (i.e. ''about'' the person) and a ''derogatory'' remark. Sometimes it is appropriate to say something ''personal'', especially when it's in defence of some criticism, as the first one on your list was.
: "''And this is related to Barack Obama in what way?''": Exactly, Ed. How is calling me a liberal relevant to Barack Obama? How is Andy bringing up my views on gun control relevant to Barack Obama?
: How is Andy ''speculating'' about my other political views relevant to Barack Obama?
: How about you apply those standards more consistently?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:00, 25 November 2008 (EST)

::Kindly avoid making personal remarks like the above on article talk pages. You are invited to contribute your thoughts on what our standards for interpersonal communication should be, but such contributions need to be made in the appropriate venue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Can we add this to the list:
* you appear to have a closed mind
Or does it not count because of the source? Oh, and Philip, I know how you will respond, with claims that it is fair comment, justified by my stance, etc, etc, etc. But just for once, step back and reflect: are not those of us who call you Liberal making fair comment, justified by your stance on a host of issues, from Obama to protecting Liberal saboteurs? And can I add a further term - it hasn't been used yet, but I feel it hovering:
* whited sepulchre
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:41, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Remarks like the following are out of place here. This talk page is only for discussing changes to the [[Barack Obama]] article.
*bringing up my views on gun control
*calling me a liberal
*I know how you will respond
*speculating about my other political views
*you apply those standards more consistently
*you appear to have a closed mind

If you have complaints about other users, do not bring them up on article talk pages. Persistent violators of this rule will be excluded from the project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:01, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama as a Muslim ==

This is a kind of silly accusation here. The citation at the top (currently citation 4 to the Christian Science Monitor) is misleading - since a Muslim was allowed to swear in on the Koran does not suggest that someone else will. That note would be just as applicable to anyone else.

As for the evidence that he is a Muslim, is this what the article should be focusing on? It makes the article seem rhetorical - that the only concern is for his faith and not his political positions.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[21][22]
This is false. His father was an atheist, his mother a Christian. And as the article goes on to say, he received Christian or at least secular education for most of his life. In any case, what does saying someone's "outlook" is Muslim mean?

: You're clueless about Islam, in which the father raises the sons in the religion. Also, Obama's mother was not a Christian in any meaningful sense. In fact, she disliked Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad[23], which most Christians would not retain. [24]
Husssein means "beautiful" in Arabic, indeed a reference to the grandson of Muhammed, but again the citation that most Christians would not retain it is misleading - it's more of a footnote than a citation. I am a Christian and my middle name is a reference to a saint. I cannot imagine converting to another faith, but if I were to, I doubt that I would drop my middle name.

: A Christian convert would not likely retain the name of Muhammad's grandson as his own. Many Christian religions ''require'' adopting a Christian name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[25]
This was clearly Obama being sarcastic. I'm as hardened a Conservative as anyone, but listen to the interview. It's linked to from [[my Muslim faith]].

: "Sarcastic"??? Right after Obama said not to play games? I've heard wacky explanations for Obama's statement, but never heard yours before. It's far=fetched.

* On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[30] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[31]
I've read books by Muslim authors (maybe), I've read books by Jewish authors, I've read books by atheist authors. I don't think that this says that I am not a devout Christian. Also, this seems to suggest that this Fareed Zakaria is not a Muslim, or at least not a devout one http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/ . (Also holy smokes, the guy has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from Harvard.) I have not read the book, so maybe the book is different.

:It's unusual for a Christian to pick out and earnestly read a book about the world from a Muslim point of view, except perhaps to criticize it. Possible, but unlikely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
Again, this applies to anyone, and rings of McCarthyism. How do we know George Bush isn't a closet Muslim? This goes back to the Koran issue - just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's true. Occam's razor, guys.

: "McCarthyism"??? Wow, perhaps you're a liberal to reach for that card. Christians who think people what they say they do need to beware of this Islamic doctrine. Sounds like you weren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.[32]
I don't see the problem with this - if anything, it seems respectful.

: Try harder to "see the problem." Pronunciation has long been used to accurately identify one's beliefs or origins. I hope you don't object to other means of identification too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

* Obama has chosen the Secret Service code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the Spanish renegado, meaning "Christian turned Muslim."[35]
This is just false. Renegado simply means "to deny" in the past sense, and while I don't doubt it was used in the way given, that is not the meaning of the word. And in any case, do you think that if Obama were a closet Muslim he'd drop all sorts of tiny clues like this?

: You seem to really like the phrase "closet Muslim"!! Odd. As to "renegado", learn more about what the word really means.

Not that I should have to defend myself to make changes like this, but I am a devout Christian and a staunch Conservative. I take plenty of issue with Barack Obama, but spending time accusing him of being a Muslim rather than criticising his policies makes the authors of this article look childish. One other thing that the article does not address is why we care whether he's a Muslim. What are the implications of this?

--[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]] 20:23, 25 November 2008 (EST)

: Oh right. You're such a staunch conservative that you accuse others of "McCarthyism" (which no conservative would do) and love the expression "closet ____". Your British spelling of "criticising" is hardly reassuring. Obama is smoother and more persuasive than you are!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)

:: The spelling is from Linux's auto-correct. And no conservative would criticiZe McCarthyism? The man was a nut, regardless of his political affiliations. And I don't see the point of pointing out political affiliation, this is merely me demonstrating logical flaws in the article. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." [John 1:1] This is a very powerful statement on the value of literature (among other things, of course), so I think that your accusation of it not being Christian to read a book from someone with a different point of view for some purpose other than to criticize it is very wrong. --[[User:Conservativecarl|Conservativecarl]]

::: "Conservativecarl", you're obviously no conservative and you're not fooling anyone here. Maybe you'd like to spend your time trying to fool someone somewhere else. If you'd like to stay here, then provide your real first name and last initial so that your account can be changed, and your country of origin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you said above that, "Many Christian religions require adopting a Christian name at baptism." That may be, but the denomination into which Obama was baptized (United Church of Christ) would ''not'' require him to make such a change.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 11:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity ==

The article states:
*''Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>''

While the first link confirms Obama's background, the second link fails to back-up the claim that fewer than 1% of Muslims convert: As I have shown [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Muslim_conversion_rate|earlier]], it gives a conversion rate of 4% for Muslims in non-Magreb Africa and claims that this rate is even higher for well-educated Africans.

Is there any source for the 1% number? And wouldn't be a conversion rate for Muslims exposed to Christianity be more relevant than a world-wide rate?

--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 10:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more data about this. But the rate is effectively 0% in most Islamic countries. The 1% figure is a good approximation worldwide based on the data available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::I've heard it is illegal (even a capital offense) in Islamic countries to stop being a Muslim. Perhaps that motivates people not to change their religion. Aside from Turkey and maybe Indonesia, I don't know of any Islamic countries with [[religious freedom]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::Well Turkey isn't considered a theocracy, though 99% of its inhabitants are moslem. [http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/facts/Religion.htm]. That's a really interesting tidbit, though, Ed because I'm sure in an Islamic theocracy, conversion to another religion is considered treason and punishable by death. I'm going to try and see if I can't find any stats on Moslems converting from Islam '''specifically''' in Turkey, though with a 99% majority, I have a feeling the 1% figure may be correct. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:15, 26 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Preliminary results (in other words, the first link I clicked). The study I found shows that 35,000 Turks converted from Islam to Christianity[http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/01/are_muslims_lea.php]. Moslems make up 99% of the population of Turkey, which is roughly 75 million. That's a rough conversion rate of 0.05%. However, around the world, over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'' (correction) [http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm]. The world population of Muslims is roughly 1.3 billion people. That leaves a conversion rate of 0.4%. Someone check my math, but that would make the 1% conversion rate pretty accurate. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:28, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You're a bit wrong, mate - the ''rate'' per day is ~0.0046% - and is unreflective of the total number over time. For example, your stats could be used to incorrectly "prove" that within sixty years, all Muslims will have converted to Christianity. Those stats don't prove the point you're trying to make.[[User:Legion126|Legion126]] 21:17, 26 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::: No, your reasoning doesn't follow, because many of the "converts" later return to their childhood religion, as is true in many religions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)

(unindent)I wasn't attempting to make a point. Someone got on the topic of numbers so I went and found some, though I'm admitedly not very good with them. I made a correction to my wording; 6 million muslims convert to Christianity every ''year'', not every ''day''. And you're not moving your decimal. 6 million divided by 1.3 billion '''is''' .0046, which translates to ~ 0.5%. I don't think it's fair to say that throughout written history less than 1% of '''all''' Muslims have converted; I think that's inaccurate, and reading through my previous post I came to a conclusion too quickly from the given data. That is still a '''very''' small amount of converts, though I believe the wording in the article should be rearranged to meet the given data. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 00:06, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Jeffrey's math is obviously correct. 6 million/year divided by 1.3 billion < 1 percent. So what part of his argument are you disputing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Family Guy

2008-11-25T14:18:06Z

RossC: grammar

'''Family Guy''' is an animated television program created by Seth MacFarlane set about the life of "the Griffins," a fictional family who live in Quahog, [[Rhode Island]]. The show, like the Simpsons and other cartoon shows on television, explores from an extreme [[liberal]] angle cultural and political themes that are important in the world today, as well as taking humorous approaches to past & present television shows.<ref>[http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/main.asp Parents' Television Council]</ref> It takes a demeaning treatment of creationists, focusing instead on the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0107lead.asp Answers in Genesis]</ref>

==References==
<References />

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Famous American musicians

2008-11-25T02:30:06Z

RossC: adding to the list--just off the top of my head

Below is a list of '''famous American musicians''':

[[Image:Duke-ellington.jpg|thumb|Duke Ellington]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|
*[[Leonard Bernstein]]
*[[Barbra Streisand]]
*[[Cole Porter]]
*[[Frederick Loewe]]
*[[Richard Rodgers]]
*[[Duke Ellington]]
*[[Louis Armstrong]]
*[[Henry Mancini]]
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0803928.html Marian Anderson]
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0840108.html Leontyne Price]
*[[Josephine Baker]]
*[[Stevie Wonder]]
*[[Ray Charles]]
*[[Miles Davis]]
*[[John Coltrane]]
*[[Herbie Hancock]]
*[[Bob Dylan]]
*[[Buddy Holly]]
*[[Otis Redding]]
*[[Sam Cooke]]
*[[Thelonius Monk]]
*[[Jimi Hendrix]]
*[[Sonny Rollins]]
|
*[[Roy Orbison]]
*[[Scott Joplin]]
*[[Gene Pitney]]
*[[John Williams]]
*[http://www.stephenschwartz.com/bio.htm Stephen Schwartz]
*[[Tony Bennett]]
*[[Ella Fitzgerald]]
*[[Bing Crosby]]
*[[Frank Sinatra]]
*[[Jesse Norman]]
*[[Robert Merrill]]
*[[Charlie Parker]]
*[[Dave Brubeck]]
*[[Art Blakey]]
*[[Elvis Presley]]
*[[John Lee Hooker]]
*[[Little Richard]]
*[[James Brown]]
*[[Chuck Berry]]
*[[Louis Jordan]]
*[[Jackie Wilson]]
*[[Bo Diddley]]
*[[Muddy Waters]]
|
* [[Charles Ives]]
* [[Jerome Kern]]
* [[Irving Berlin]]
* [[Stephen Collins Foster]]
* [[Aaron Copland]]
* [[John Philip Sousa]]
* [[Samuel Barber]]
* [[Victor Herbert]]
* [[George Gershwin]]
* [[Edward A. MacDowell]]
* [http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/NevinCollection.htm Ethelbert Nevin]
* [[Philip Glass]]
*[[Woody Guthrie]]
* [[Charlie Christian]]
* [[Johnny Cash]]
* [[Jelly Roll Morton]]
* [[Nat "King" Cole]]
* [[Bill Haley]]
* [[B.B. King]]
* [[Lead Belly]]
* [[Clifton Chenier]]
* [[Billie Holiday]]
* [[Nina Simone]]
|}

[[Category: Musicians]]
[[Category: Americans]]

Talk:Famous American artists

2008-11-25T00:26:46Z

RossC:

Joachin; Rudolf ''Nureyev'' was a dancer, not Rudolph Valentino. And Pet. Clarke is a Brit. And when the link to [[Stephen Schwartz]] is activated we get the writer. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:17, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: OK, working on it. Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 06:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Standards for Inclusion?==
While I'm thankful for your efforts to class this place up with your articles on art and artists, I'm rather perplexed as to how you're choosing the folks you feature here. While "famous" and "artist" are inherently subjective terms, by almost any standard many of your choices are--frankly--bizarre. Take the Musicians category, for example--Steve Lawrence and Ethelbert Nevin? I can't imagine any discussion in which they'd be more famous or more artistic or more influential than a plethora of people ''not'' on the list (from Louis Armstrong to Frank Zappa). Or the Writers category--you list Bayard Taylor and Stephen King and Chuck Palahniuk, but leave off Steinbeck and Melville and Hawthorne and Emerson and Dickinson and Frost and any number of others? The other categories have similar issues to some degree or other. I think you need to focus your efforts, decide on a standard of some sort, and ask for help/opinions. I am reluctant to make wholesale changes here, as this is largely your baby, but I am more than happy to assist. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:38, 21 November 2008 (EST)

: May be you could help also with some red links. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::With all due respect, mate, if Steve Lawrence doesn't disappear from the list within a day, I am going to do it myself, which will ruin the looks of that lovely line of "Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs)etc" on the history page and slow down by one your rush towards the 25,000contribs total (which I sometimes think you will reach by Christmas. :)) I really do wish you hadn't included him because I have not been able to stop humming "''Go away, Little Girl''" since I saw him there three days ago and the family is starting to talk about leaving home! So please, Joaquín....! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:29, 23 November 2008 (EST)

::: This time the name of the list is "musicians" not "composers" like in "Famous Artists". And as far I as know he is a famous one; nicht wahr? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:50, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Bis heute nur 20,554, affenschande! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Yes, he was...for a little while. He was one of the thousands of artists who came and went. He hasn't had a particularly high profile in recent decades. But he is not immortal like so many are that are '''not''' included in the list. Where are the singers like Ella Fitzgerald, Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Barbra Streisand, the classical singers like Jesse Norman, Robert Merrill, Marion Anderson, the band leaders, the conductors, the greats of jazz (now ''there'' is America for you, Joaquín - jazz! And remember; "the real American folksong is a ''rag''...so said (I think) Ira Gershwin.)? Where's Charlie Parker? If the criterion is "fame" - especially lasting fame - then Steve Lawrence doesn't really qualify. (I have been desperately singing Nat King Cole songs this morning to rid my mind of ''Go away Little girl''...now there is an ''immortal''! Replace Steve with Nat King Cole. It may have been the late great Isaac Hayes who said: "Nat was cooool before it was cooool to be cooool."
:And I've just realised you left out possibly the most influential and ''famous'' all-round musician of the twentieth century...bar none. Leonard Bernstein. He was a conductor, pianist, classical composer, Broadway composer, song writer, educator, writer and so on. He would have to go on the top of any list.
::As for contribution tallies - check out [[Opera]]. It took me two whole edits. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:::Another morning...thanks for putting in those greats, but Ira Gershwin should not be there: he was his brother's lyricist and is not considered a ''famous musician''. (He wrote the words to a song called ''The Great American Folksong (is a rag)''. That's why I mentioned him...which reminds me: [[Scott Joplin]] should be there.) I enjoyed your choice of the divine Joséphine. The French will be happy. (But I still hate Steve Lawrence being there when there are literally thousands of better candidates!)
::::I'll get rid of some red links for the musicians later but I am finishing other things this morning. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:27, 24 November 2008 (EST)

JM--Let me ask my question in a different way, so I can be of help without messing up the article...What is your intention for this article, your goal: A) a comprehensive list of '''all''' famous American artists [whether they be really really famous or just a tiny bit famous], B) a list of the '''most''' famous American artists, or C) a list of the most '''influential''' American artists?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:Good question. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)

: Answer to Ross: In art it is very difficult to have a consensus; The article is open to be edited; the only criteria is to add famous artists with quality. Alan, who is a proved authority in music do not like [[Steve Lawrence]], but according to his article in his time he was honored as a musician and also appears in some lists of famous artist. Do you have some resources or links to offer? Go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:39, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::I think Alan's point re Steve Lawrence is that--yes--SL is/was fairly famous, but there are hundreds of American artists who are as (or more) famous than he, and that Lawrence was not the least bit influential, musically speaking.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 19:26, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:: This article as CP is young, it started 18 November 2008, consequently as CP, it can not pretend to be comprehensive in nothing. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:49, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Two quick comments - one, shouldn't Robert Mapplethorpe be on the photog. list; and two, shouldn't the lists be alphabetized? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:14, 24 November 2008 (EST)

: The list for Photographers and Dancers have a chronological order. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:18, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Famous American artists

2008-11-24T18:58:59Z

RossC: asking another question

Talk:Famous American artists

2008-11-22T03:38:27Z

RossC: needs to focus on standards

First Black president

2008-11-19T17:35:10Z

RossC: British/Irish/German/Kenyan are *not* races; see talk

Outlandish false claims circulated widely on the web in late 2008 regarding America's '''first [[black]] president'''. For years extreme black separatists have used falsified evidence to claim that five presidents were black. The chief source is a self-published book by a black militant named Leroy Vaughn, ''Black People And Their Place In World History'' (2002).<ref> see [http://www.amazon.com/Black-People-Their-Place-History/dp/0971592004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227071953&sr=1-1 Amazon blurb]</ref> Vaughn got his gossip from ''The Six Black Presidents: Black Blood, White Masks, USA'' by black militant Auset Bakhufu (1993),<ref> See the highly [http://www.amazon.ca/Six-Black-Presidents-Blood-White/dp/1880187000 negative reviews]</ref> who in turn drew on ''Sex and Race: Negro-Caucasian Mixing in All Ages and All Lands'' (1940) by Joel Augustus Rogers, a black militant of the 1930s. The goal of the propaganda was not truth but hatred of whites and the American political system. No conservative scholar gives the slanders any credence.

[[Barack Hussein Obama]], slated to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, sought to be considered as a fellow black man by [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|African American voters]]. For example, he awkwardly referred to black teenagers 30 years younger than him as "brothers", declaring that "brothers should pull up their pants."<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-to-mtv-br.html "Obama: 'Brothers Should Pull up Their Pants'".] Political Radar, ABC News Blogs</ref>

President elect Obama is bi-racial; his father was black and his mother was white.<ref name="SundayTimes">Jorge, Rome (November 9, 2008) [http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/nov/09/yehey/weekend/20081109week1.html ''US President-elect Barack Hussein Obama 2nd''] The Sunday Times</ref> He ''will be'' the first [[Affirmative Action President]].

==References==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Talk:First Black president

2008-11-19T17:33:02Z

RossC:

Obama has been universally declared to be the first black President of the USA by all of the world's media. Can you cite any credible external source which suggests that he isn't the first black President, or suggests other US Presidents who may have been black? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I found two, though one isn't "external". I don't know why you wouldn't consider an American history teacher to be a credible source, but I think you should.
:I don't know why you added back in the comment by ADumas. He was banned for this comment. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:"Sideways", if you take orders from the "world's media," then why even bother investigating the truth for yourself? The media will tell you what to think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I checked the sources and they are deliberately false and viciously anti-American. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)
==on changes==
"an admitted liberal?" Before you make things up, you better check your facts.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: I apologize. You haven't admitted it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=541500] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Female_Genital_Mutilation&diff=prev&oldid=541562] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholicism&diff=prev&oldid=543791] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=543845] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=543846] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Should_pharmacists_be_forced_to_fill_legal_prescriptions_they_personally_object_to_on_moral_grounds%3F&diff=prev&oldid=544599] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Obesity&diff=prev&oldid=544952] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=545545] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students&diff=prev&oldid=546175] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:BethanyS&diff=prev&oldid=546247] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Martina_Navratilova&diff=prev&oldid=548503] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Hockey_and_racism&diff=prev&oldid=548668] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=549823] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=550144] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_heroism&diff=prev&oldid=553716] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 21:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:So, having a difference of opinion is being liberal? good to know. please remind me of my liberal leanings when it's time to vote next May, or I may forget and vote conservative.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 21:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Delete ==

Unencyclopedic. Anyone else agree? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, but my opinion doesn't really matter. Sorry. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::See [[Talk:Main Page]]. Ed thought it was un, I asked Andy, Andy undeleted. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 22:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Yes it does LiamG, I have seen your posts and your past defense against vandals. You are valued here. I don't know about this page either. First Black president and first Hawaii born President. First president to admit inhaling marijuana.--jpatt 22:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::Thanks, Jpatt. It's nice to be valued by someone :-) Still, I'm a nobody compared to Ed, and he was overruled, too. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 22:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::jpatt - here's what I want to know. People in the media obsess about Obama being Muslim or not, obsess about his name, and if a birth certificate has the right boarder around it. But why does virtually NO ONE (including yourself) not talk about his cocaine habit. He admitted to it, yet I didn't see it mentioned once by the McCain camp or the republicans at large. Isn't that far more important about who he is, who he has been, and the choices he might make than accusations about him being on a board with someone or his name? He not only admits to "doing blow", but says it so light heartedly. It's just no big deal in his mind. Like a glass of wine or a cigarette.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 23:19, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I could not find fault with anything you wrote. Some people obsess at him the Muslim, or him the Commie, not about him the illegal drug abuser. I myself always looked at him in the context of faulty decision making, overlooking his pre-Harvard days. --jpatt 23:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Because it's not something he still does. If he were a muslim, (which I don't think he is even though I'm sceptical about his "christianity") it would be a bigger deal that his past drug use because it would probably affect his pollcies. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::extreme black fringe groups for years have been promoting this nonsense about Lincoln, Jefferson etc., which many conservative scholars (including myself) have looked into and rejected as false. (the Harding stuff was a KKK rumor in the 1920s and equally false.) It's false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==racial/ethnic identity==
British, Irish, German, and Kenyan are not racial identities. They are nationalities. It'd even be a stretch to consider them ethnicities. Further, while Obama claims to be part-Cherokee, there's no particular evidence for that (other than family rumor). His father was black (African) and his mother was white--hence, bi-racial. I also removed the bit about Obama struggling to be accepted as black by the black community, which is just silly, but I'll leave it in for now, in the interests of parity.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:33, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Rodney King

2008-11-19T17:10:34Z

RossC: added ref

'''Rodney King''' was an [[African American]] construction worker and resident of California. In 1991, he was pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence and speeding. During the arrest, King was arrested and tasered by four Los Angeles Police Department officers: Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno and Sergeant Stacey Koon. Two were convincted of beating him. The arrest was video-taped by a nearby bystander and became international news. The infamous footage strained race relations between the LAPD and the African American community, with many residents calling for charges. The four officers were charged with beating King, but a state jury convicted only one, and a federal jury convicted only two. The state acquittal of the police officers involved triggered the [[1992 Los Angeles riots]].

==State Trial==

The trial was moved to neighboring Ventura County because of excessive media coverage. The selected jury was composed of ten Caucasians, one Latino and one Asian. During the trial, the four officers involved, charged with use of excessive force, testified that they believed King was under the influence of [[PCP]], and claimed that his continued resistance led to the amount of force used. The defense also claimed that the video didn't capture the moment accurately. The jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree about one of the charges for Powell. On April 29, 1992, only Powell was convicted.

==1992 Riots==

When the jury verdict was announced, it triggered a week long riot in the Los Angeles area. In the end, the governor called for support from the federal government. With the assistance of the local and state police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard, order was eventually restored. After the violence subsided, 53 people were dead and 2,383 injured. Over 7,000 fires were set, damaging 3,100 businesses, and causing nearly $1 billion in damages. Smaller riots also occurred in Las Vegas and Atlanta. On the third day of the riots, King went before news camera to ask for peace, uttering the now famous phrase: "Can we all (just) get along?"

==Federal Trial==

After the riots, the Department of Justice indicted the four officers again, charging them with violating King's civil rights. The new jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty and acquitted Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno of all charges. Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were sentenced to 30 months of prison.

==Aftermath==

King filed a civil suit against the city of Los Angeles, and was awarded $3.8 million in damages. In subsequent years, King has been arrested several times for offenses including drunken driving, domestic abuse, and indecent exposure. In November 2007, King claimed he was shot by thieves attempting to steal his bicycle.<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/30/local/me-king30</ref>

King is currently featured on a reality television show spotlighting celebrities recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

==References==
<references/>

Rodney King

2008-11-19T16:52:42Z

RossC: consolidated Wikipedia plagiarism, updated

'''Rodney King''' was an [[African American]] construction worker and resident of California. In 1991, he was pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence and speeding. During the arrest, King was arrested and tasered by four Los Angeles Police Department officers: Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Theodore Briseno and Sergeant Stacey Koon. Two were convincted of beating him. The arrest was video-taped by a nearby bystander and became international news. The infamous footage strained race relations between the LAPD and the African American community, with many residents calling for charges. The four officers were charged with beating King, but a state jury convicted only one, and a federal jury convicted only two. The state acquittal of the police officers involved triggered the [[1992 Los Angeles riots]].

==State Trial==

The trial was moved to neighboring Ventura County because of excessive media coverage. The selected jury was composed of ten Caucasians, one Latino and one Asian. During the trial, the four officers involved, charged with use of excessive force, testified that they believed King was under the influence of [[PCP]], and claimed that his continued resistance led to the amount of force used. The defense also claimed that the video didn't capture the moment accurately. The jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree about one of the charges for Powell. On April 29, 1992, only Powell was convicted.

==1992 Riots==

When the jury verdict was announced, it triggered a week long riot in the Los Angeles area. In the end, the governor called for support from the federal government. With the assistance of the local and state police, the US Army, the Marines and the National Guard, order was eventually restored. After the violence subsided, 53 people were dead and 2,383 injured. Over 7,000 fires were set, damaging 3,100 businesses, and causing nearly $1 billion in damages. Smaller riots also occurred in Las Vegas and Atlanta. On the third day of the riots, King went before news camera to ask for peace, uttering the now famous phrase: "Can we all (just) get along?"

==Federal Trial==

After the riots, the Department of Justice indicted the four officers again, charging them with violating King's civil rights. The new jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty and acquitted Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno of all charges. Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were sentenced to 30 months of prison.

==Aftermath==

King filed a civil suit against the city of Los Angeles, and was awarded $3.8 million in damages. In subsequent years, King has been arrested several times for offenses including drunken driving, domestic abuse, and indecent exposure. In November 2007, King claimed he was shot by thieves attempting to steal his bicycle.

King is currently featured on a reality television show spotlighting celebrities recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

First Black president

2008-11-19T16:35:17Z

RossC: removed silliness, corrected misstatement

First Black president

2008-11-19T03:20:27Z

RossC: only proper nouns should be capitalized

It is not known for certain who America's first [[black]] president was.<ref name="five other black">http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm</ref>

It could be [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-1809), described as the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father." In fact, five earlier presidents may have had black ancestry. [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461print.cfm]

[[Barack Hussein Obama]], slated to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, sought to be considered as a fellow black by African American voters. For example, he awkwardly referred to black teenagers 30 years younger than him as "brothers", declaring that "brothers should pull up their pants."<ref>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-to-mtv-br.html</ref>

Some have said Obama will be the first black president, but without adequate proof.<ref name="five other black" /> He is also the first [[Affirmative Action President]].

==References==

<references/>

Talk:Nanotechnology

2008-11-12T18:30:21Z

RossC: To sense

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The article has a stub at the end asking users to expand it. I did.

==Reversion of JohnD edits==

I don't see what was wrong with them, other than a reference not being provided. Why shouldn't they be restored since they were removed without explanation?. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I can't speak for Ed Poor, but I'm guessing the only reason this was reverted was the lack of reference. Whenever yyou edit, please try to cite credible sources. Thanks. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:This doesn't make sense: "The 'Top Down' method involves taking a larger object and removing parts to create a smaller structure similar to creating a statue from a block of stone." If I had inadvertently deleted correct information, he ought to have explained why it was correct. Instead, he implied that the stub template gave him a 'right' to edit.

:No one here has rights. We only have an obligation to share truthful and useful information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not a physicist, and my only resource is wiki, which is in and of itself, not saying much, but wiki does seem to accept that these are two quite standard ways of making nano tech. "top down" and "bottom up" are even the words they use. I won't change anything, as I'm distrustful of wiki as a source.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 10:47, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Those are the standard ways; JohnD just described them wrong, and then argued instead of making a correction.

:Collaboration is not about "exercising your rights" but about helping each other to produce a good article. Those who overemphasize the former at the expense of the latter will not get much attention here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::JohnD didn't "argue"--he just asked why his edit had been reverted. And he can't make corrections if he doesn't know what's wrong with the edit. Which is probably why he asked you why you reverted his edit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:30, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Gay violence

2008-11-12T03:42:17Z

RossC: see talk page

Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the [[Family Research Institute]], has claimed that, "The top six U.S. male [[serial killer]]s were all gay." <ref>[http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html]</ref>. The worst of these was Donald Harvey, who claimed 37 victims. However, there have been a number of male heterosexual serial killers with more victims, including Donald Henry Gaskins (100), David Parker Ray (60), Tommy Lynn Sells (70), Gerald Stano (41), and Gary Ridgway (71), among others.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Talk:Gay violence

2008-11-12T03:40:11Z

RossC: ludwig tiene

The top six male serial killers in America are/were not all gay, as claimed in this article. See: Gary Ridgway, Ted Bundy, and H.H. Holmes as counterexamples.
----
The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;

• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;

• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;

• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;

• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and

• Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).

So you're saying your three killed more people, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:They're hardly 'my three', but yes: Ridgway claimed 71 but pled guilty to killing 48; Bundy confessed to 30 although estimates range up to 100 with 35 being the majority view; Holmes confessed to 27 with potentially up to 200; Charles Cullen claimed to have killed 45 - convicted of 19, I believe; Coral Eugene Watts plead guilty to 12 but the total is probably closer to 100. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Then put them in the article. What's with all the debate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:So you know, he just got blocked. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::Not a problem--I'll put in the information as per Ed's request.

==murderous gay nazi?==
I'm taking out the bit about "Ludwig Tiene", the alleged gay killer nazi. I got suspicious at the claim that he raped and murdered 100 boys/day, which I daresay is a physical impossibility. Googling, the only mention of the fella is in the referenced cite (and references to same). Unless there are other independent sources, I'm skeptical that the guy really existed. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Nicolaus Copernicus

2008-11-11T01:32:42Z

RossC:

[[Image:Nicholas_copernicus.gif|thumb|right|150px|Nicholas Copernicus]]

A Polish scientist named '''Nicolaus Copernicus''' (Polish:Mikołaj Kopernik, 1473-1543) published a model of the [[solar system]] that combined the [[heliocentrism]] of [[Aristarchus]] with the epicycles of [[Ptolemy]]. "Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe. All this is suggested by the systematic procession of events and the harmony of the whole Universe, if only we face the facts, as they say, 'with both eyes open.'"

Many have misinterpreted Copernicus' theory to misattribute the [[Copernican Principle]] to him. This viewpoint states that the [[Earth]] has no special place in the universe, but this would hardly have been espoused by Copernicus.

Copernicus worked for years on his book describing his theory, and published it near the very end of his life. He entitled it, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" ("On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres"), and published it in 1543. The major parts of Copernican theory are:
# Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
# The center of the universe is near the [[Sun]].
# Around the Sun, in order, are [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], [[Earth]] and [[Moon]], [[Mars]], [[Jupiter]], [[Saturn]], and the fixed stars.
# The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
# Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
# The distance from the Earth to the sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.

Copernicus was able to estimate the distances of the planets to the Sun, relative to the Earth's distance to the Sun, and correctly gave the order of the planets in distance to the Sun. Aristarchus was only able to compute the distance from the Earth to the Moon, and the radius of the Moon, and to crudely estimate the Earth's distance to the Sun. Copernicus also estimated the sidereal length of the Martian year.

The reception to his work was initially positive within the [[Catholic Church]]. Years later, the Church reconsidered in connection with claims by [[Galileo]] that the Copernican model had been proven correct. Copernicus' book was suspended until corrected by the [[Index Librorum Prohibitorum|Index]] of the Catholic Church in 1616, because the Pythagorean doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun "is false and altogether opposed to the [[Holy Scripture]]". <ref> Decree of General Congregation of the Index, March 5, 1616 (Translated from Latin)</ref> <ref>Trial of Galileo [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/admonition.html]</ref> These corrections were indicated in 1620, and nine sentences had to be either omitted or changed.<ref>Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm]</ref> The book stayed on the Index until 1758. In the 20th century, scientists adopted a view closer to the Church scientists. The consensus is now that motion is relative, that Earth-centered and Sun-centered coordinate systems are equally valid for astronomical calculations, that Galileo's main argument for the Copernican system was fallacious,<ref>Galileo argued that the motion of the Earth caused the tides.</ref> and that the doctrine of the immobility of the Sun is false.<ref>The Sun orbits around a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.</ref>

[[Image:Copernicus_system.gif|thumb|right|300px|The Copernican System]]

== Copernican Revolution ==
Copernicus's book title used the word "revolution" in the sense of planets revolving around the Sun, not in the sense of an intellectual revolt. In the late 20th century, the term Copernican Revolution has come to mean the prototypical [[paradigm shift]], where scientists suddenly became enlightened by rejecting the prejudices of their predecessors.

In fact the Copernican theory was no more accurate than the Ptolemaic model. It had no compelling physical arguments for its superiority, and it proposed no experiments for testing its novel features. In some respects, it was actually less accurate, as more epicycles had to be added (in place of Ptolemy's [[equant]]). Copernicus' main argument in favor of his theory was that it was aesthetically more pleasing as it allowed the planets to move in uniform circular motion, an idea later proven false by Kepler. Many of the ancient Greek arguments for and against [[heliocentrism]] remained unresolved for some time. <ref>Ancient Greeks objected to Aristarchus's heliocentrim because (1) we don't feel the Earth's motion, (2) unattached objects don't fly off, and (3) no annual stellar parallax. [http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/history_greekGeocentricHeliocentric.html] Stellar parallax was not measured until 1838, while (1) and (2) were resolved by the work of [[Isaac Newton]].</ref>

== Notes ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomers|Copernicus, Nicolaus]]

USS Enterprise (CV-6)

2008-11-11T01:23:08Z

RossC: typos

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Enterprise CV6.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|USS ''Enterprise'' (CV-6)
|-
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Career
!align ="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:US Naval Jack 48 stars.png|48px|United States Navy Jack]]
|-
|-
| Class:
| ''Yorktown''
|-
| Laid down:
| 16 March 1934
|-
| Launched:
| 03 October 1936
|-
| Commissioned:
| 12 May 1938
|-
| Decommissioned:
| 17 February 1947
|-
| Fate:
| Sold for scrapping, 01 July 1958
|-
! colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy;"| General characteristics
|-
| Displacement:
| 19,800 t
|-
| Length:
| 809 ft 6 in
|-
| Beam (waterline):
| 83 ft 1 in
|-
| Beam (flight deck):
| 114 ft
|-
| Draft:
| 28 ft
|-
| Speed:
| 33 knots
|-
| Complement:
| 2,919 officers and men
|-
| Armament:
| eight 5" 38 cal guns
|}
'''USS ''Enterprise''''' (CV-6) was a highly-decorated aircraft carrier in the [[United States Navy]] which saw extensive service during [[World War II]].

==Early history==
The seventh ship to bear the name, ''Enterprise'' was launched 3 October 1936 by Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., Newport News, Virginia, and sponsored by Mrs. Claude A. Swanson, wife of the Secretary of the Navy. She was commissioned 12 May 1938, Captain N. H. White in command.

''Enterprise'' sailed south on a shakedown cruise which took her to [[Rio de Janeiro]], [[Brazil]]. After her return she operated along the east coast and in the Caribbean until April of 1939 when she was ordered to duty in the Pacific. Based first on San Diego and then on Pearl Harbor, the carrier trained herself and her aircraft squadrons for any eventuality, and carried aircraft among the island bases of the Pacific. ''Enterprise'' had just completed one such mission, delivering Marine Corps Fighter Squadron 211 to [[Wake Island]] on 2 December 1941, and was en route to Hawaii when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

==World War II service==
''Enterprise's'' scout planes arrived over Pearl Harbor during the attack and, though surprised, immediately went into action in defense of the naval base. The carrier, meanwhile, launched her remaining aircraft in a fruitless search for the Japanese striking force. ''Enterprise'' put into Pearl Harbor for fuel and supplies on December 8 and sailed early the next morning to patrol against possible additional attacks on the Hawaiian Islands. While the group did not encounter any surface ships, ''Enterprise'' aircraft scored a kill by sinking submarine 1-170 in 23°45' N., 155°35' W., on 10 December 1941.

During the last 2 weeks of December 1941, ''Enterprise'' and her group steamed to the westward of Hawaii to cover those islands while two other carrier groups made a belated attempt to relieve Wake Island. After a brief rest at Pearl Harbor, the ''Enterprise'' group sailed on 11 January to protect convoys reinforcing [[Samoa]]. On 1 February the task force dealt a hard blow to Kwajalein, Wotje, and Maloelap in the [[Marshall Islands]], sinking three ships, damaging eight, and destroying numerous airplanes and ground facilities. ''Enterprise'' received only minor damage in the Japanese counterattack, as her force retired to Pearl Harbor.

During the next month ''Enterprise's'' force swept the central Pacific, blasting enemy installations on Wake and Marcus Islands, then received minor alterations and repairs at Pearl Harbor. On 8 April 1942 she departed to rendezvous with ''Hornet'' (CV-8) and sail westward to launch 16 Army [[B-25 Mitchell|B-25]] bombers in a spectacular raid on Tokyo under Lt. Colonel [[James Doolittle]]. While ''Enterprise'' fighters flew combat air patrol, the B-25s roared into the air on 18 April and raced undetected the 600 miles to their target. The task force, its presence known to the enemy, reversed course and returned to Pearl Harbor on 25 April.

Five days later, the "Big E" was speeding toward the South Pacific to reinforce the U.S. carriers operating in the Coral Sea. Distance proved too great to conquer in time, and the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]] was history before ''Enterprise'' could reach her destination. Ordered back to Hawaii, the carrier entered Pearl Harbor on 26 May and began intensive preparations to meet the expected Japanese thrust at Midway Island. Two days later she sortied as flagship of Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, CTF 16, with orders "to hold Midway and inflict maximum damage on the enemy by strong attrition tactics." With ''Enterprise'' in TF 16 were ''Hornet'', 6 cruisers, and 10 destroyers. On 30 May, TF 17, Rear Admiral Frank J. Fletcher in ''Yorktown'' (CV-5), with two cruisers, and six destroyers, sailed to support TF 16; as senior officer, Rear Admiral Fletcher became "Officer in Tactical Command."

===[[Battle of Midway]]===
Battle was joined on the morning of 4 June 1942 when four Japanese carriers, unaware of the presence of U.S. forces, launched attacks on Midway Island. Just 3 hours after the first bomb fell on Midway, planes from ''Hornet'' struck the enemy force, and 30 minutes later ''Enterprise'' and ''Yorktown'' aircraft streaked in to join in smashing the Japanese carriers. Each side hurled attacks at the other during the day in one of history's most decisive battles. Though the forces were in contact to 7 June, by the end of the 4th the outcome had been decided and the tide of the war in the Pacific had been turned in the United States' favor. ''Yorktown'' and ''Hammann'' (DD-412) were the only United States ships sunk, but TFs 16 and 17 lost a total of 113 planes, 61 of them in combat, during the battle. Japanese losses, far more severe, consisted of 4 carriers, 1 cruiser, and 272 carrier aircraft. ''Enterprise'' and all other ships of TFs 16 and 17 came through undamaged, returning to Pearl Harbor on 13 June 1942.

===Guadalcanal campaign===
After a month of rest and overhaul, ''Enterprise'' sailed on 15 July for the South Pacific where she joined TF 61 to support the amphibious landings in the [[Solomon Islands]] on 8 August. For the next 2 weeks, the carrier and her planes guarded seaborne communication lines southwest of the Solomons. On 24 August a strong Japanese force was sighted some 200 miles north of Guadalcanal and TF 61 sent planes [[Battle of the Eastern Solomons|to the attack]]. An enemy light carrier was sent to the bottom and the Japanese troops intended for Guadalcanal were forced back. ''Enterprise'' suffered most heavily of the United States ships, 3 direct hits and 4 near misses killed 74, wounded 95, and inflicted serious damage on the carrier. But well-trained damage control parties, and quick, hard work patched her up so that she was able to return to Hawaii under her own power.

Repaired at Pearl Harbor from 10 September to 16 October, ''Enterprise'' departed once more for the South Pacific where with ''Hornet'', she formed TF 61. On 26 October, ''Enterprise'' scout planes located a Japanese carrier force and the [[Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands]] was underway. ''Enterprise'' aircraft struck carriers, battleships, and cruisers during the struggle, while the "Big E" herself underwent intensive attack. Hit twice by bombs, ''Enterprise'' lost 44 killed and had 75 wounded. Despite serious damage, she continued in action and took on board a large number of planes from ''Hornet'' when that carrier had to be abandoned. Though the American losses of a carrier and a destroyer were more severe than the Japanese loss of one light cruiser, the battle gained priceless time to reinforce Guadalcanal against the next enemy onslaught.

''Enterprise'' entered Noumea, New Caledonia, on 30 October for repairs, but a new Japanese thrust at the Solomons demanded her presence and she sailed on 11 November, repair crews from ''Vestal'' (AR-4) still on board, working vigorously. Two days later, "Big E" planes swarmed down on an enemy force and disabled a battleship which was sunk later by other American aircraft, and on 14 November, aviators from ''Enterprise'' helped to dispatch a heavy cruiser. When the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ended on 15 November 1942, ''Enterprise'' had shared in sinking 16 ships and damaging 8 more. The carrier returned to Noumea on 16 November to complete her repairs.

Sailing again on 4 December, ''Enterprise'' trained out of Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides, until 28 January 1943 when she departed for the Solomons area. On 30 January her fighters flew combat air patrol for a cruiser-destroyer group during the [[Battle of Rennell Island]]. Despite the destruction of a large majority of the attacking Japanese bombers by ''Enterprise'' planes, ''Chicago'' (CA-29) was sunk by aerial torpedoes. Detached after the battle, the carrier arrived at Espiritu Santo on 1 February, and for the next 3 months operated out of that base, covering U.S. surface forces up to the Solomons. Enterprise then steamed to Pearl Harbor where, on 27 May 1943, Admiral [[Chester W. Nimitz]] presented the ship with the first Presidential Unit Citation won by an aircraft carrier. On 20 July 1943 she entered Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington for a much-needed overhaul.

===Later operations in the Pacific===
Back in action waters by mid-November, ''Enterprise'' joined in providing close air support to the Marines landing on Makin Island, from 19 to 21 November. On the night of 26 November 1943, the "Big E" introduced carrier-based night fighter operations in the Pacific when a three-plane team from the ship broke up a large group of land-based bombers attacking TG 50.2. After a heavy strike by aircraft of TF 50 against Kwajalein on 4 December, ''Enterprise'' returned to Pearl Harbor 5 days later.

The carrier's next operation was with TF 58 in softening up the Marshall Islands and supporting the landings on Kwajalein, from 29 January to 3 February. Then ''Enterprise'' sailed, still with TF 58, to strike the Japanese naval base at Truk in the [[Caroline Islands]], on 17 February. Again the "Big E" made aviation history when she launched the first night radar bombing attack from any U.S. carrier. The 12 torpedo bombers in this strike achieved excellent results, accounting for nearly one-third of the 200,000 tons of shipping destroyed by the aircraft of the task force.

Detached from TF 58, ''Enterprise'' launched raids on Jaluit Atoll on 20 February, then steamed to Majuro and Espiritu Santo. Sailing 15 March in TG 36.1, she provided air cover and close support for the landings on Emirau Island (19-25 March). The carrier rejoined TF 58 on 26 March and for the next 12 days joined in the series of hard-hitting strikes against the Yap, Ulithi, Woleai, and the Palau Islands. After a week's rest and replenishment at Majuro, ''Enterprise'' sailed (14 April) to support landings in the Hollandia area of New Guinea, and then hit Truk again (29-30 April).

===Saipan===
On 6 June 1944, the "Big E" and her companions of TG 58.3 sortied from Majuro to strike with the rest of TF 58, the [[Mariana Islands]]. Blasting [[Saipan]], Rota, and [[Guam]] between 11 and 14 June, ''Enterprise'' pilots gave direct support to the landings on Saipan on 15 June, and covered the troops ashore for the next 2 days. Aware of a major Japanese attempt to break up the invasion of Saipan, Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, Commander 5th Fleet, positioned TF 58 to meet the thrust. On 19 June 1944 took place the greatest carrier aircraft battle in history. For over 8 hours airmen of the United States and Imperial Japanese navies fought in the skies over TF 58 and the Marianas. By the end of the day, a United States victory was apparent, and at the conclusion of the strikes against the Japanese fleet on 20 June, the triumph became complete. Six American ships had been damaged, and 130 planes and a total of 76 pilots and aircrewmen had been lost. But with a major assist from U.S. submarines, 3 Japanese carriers were sunk, and 426 ship-based aircraft were destroyed. Japanese naval aviation never recovered from this blow.

The [[Battle of the Philippine Sea]] over, ''Enterprise'' and her companions continued to support the Saipan campaign through 5 July. ''Enterprise'' then sailed for Pearl Harbor and a month of rest and overhaul. Back in action waters on 24 August, the carrier sailed with TF 38 in that force's aerial assault on the Volcano and Bonin Islands from 31 August to 2 September, and Yap, Ulithi, and the Palaus from 6 to 8 September. After operating west of the Palau Islands, the "Big E" joined other units of TF 38 on 7 October, and shaped course to the northward. From 10 to 20 October her aviators roared over [[Okinawa]], [[Taiwan|Formosa]], and the [[Philippines]], blasting enemy airfields, shore installations, and shipping in preparation for the assault on Leyte. After supporting the Leyte landings on 20 October, ''Enterprise'' headed for Ulithi to replenish but the approach of the Japanese fleet on 23 October, brought her racing back into action. In the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]] (23-26 October), ''Enterprise'' planes struck all three groups of enemy forces, battering battleships and destroyers before the action ended. The carrier remained on patrol east of Samar and Leyte until the end of October, then retired to Ulithi for supplies. During November, her aircraft struck targets in the Manila area, and the island of Yap. The "Big E" returned to Pearl Harbor on 6 December 1944.

Sailing 24 December for the Philippine area, ''Enterprise'' carried on board an air group specially trained in night carrier operations. She joined TG 38.5 and swept the waters north of Luzon and of the China Sea during January of 1945, striking shore targets and shipping from Formosa to Indo-China. After a brief visit to Ulithi, the "Big E" joined TG 58.5 on 10 February 1945, and provided day and night combat air patrol for TF 58 as it struck Tokyo on 16 and 17 February. She then supported the marines on [[Iwo Jima]] from the day of the landings, 19 February, until 9 March when she sailed for Ulithi. During one part of that period, ''Enterprise'' kept aircraft aloft continuously over Iwo Jima for 174 hours. Departing Ulithi 15 March, the carrier continued her night work in raids against Kyushu, Honshu, and shipping in the Inland Sea of Japan. Damaged slightly by an enemy bomb on 18 March, ''Enterprise'' entered Ulithi 6 days later for repairs. Back in action on 5 April, she supported the Okinawa operation until again damaged (11 April), this time by a suicide plane, and forced back to Ulithi. Off Okinawa once more on 6 May, ''Enterprise'' flew patrols around the clock as the menace of the kamikaze increased. On 14 May 1945, the "Big E" suffered her last wound of World War II when a suicide plane destroyed her forward elevator, killing 14 and wounding 34 men. The carrier sailed for repairs at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, arriving 7 June 1945.

==After the war==
Restored to peak condition, ''Enterprise'' voyaged to Pearl Harbor, returning to the States with some 1,100 servicemen due for discharge, then sailed on to [[New York City]], arriving 17 October 1945. Two weeks later she proceeded to [[Boston]] for installation of additional berthing facilities, then began a series of "Magic Carpet" voyages to [[Europe]], bringing more than 10,000 veterans home in her final service to her country. Enterprise entered the New York Naval Shipyard on 18 January 1946 for inactivation, and was decommissioned on 17 February 1947. The "Big E" was sold on 1 July 1958.

In addition to her Presidential Unit Citation, ''Enterprise'' received the Navy Unit Commendation and 20 battle stars for World War II service.

==The ''Enterprise'' in Media==
The first season of the documentary television series, ''Battle 360'', centers around the wartime exploits of the USS ''Enterprise''.

{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/e4/enterprise-vii.htm]}}}.
|}

[[category:United States Navy]]
[[Category:Aircraft Carriers]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Gay violence

2008-11-11T01:14:02Z

RossC: Per Ed's direction

Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the [[Family Research Institute]], has claimed that, "The top six U.S. male [[serial killer]]s were all gay." [http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html]. The worst of these was Donald Harvey, who claimed 37 victims. However, there have been a number of male heterosexual serial killers with more victims, including Donald Henry Gaskins (100), David Parker Ray (60), Tommy Lynn Sells (70), Gerald Stano (41), and Gary Ridgway (71), among others.

There was also a Nazi named [http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/Chapter6.htm Ludwig Tiene].

Talk:Gay violence

2008-11-11T01:11:34Z

RossC:

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-06T19:25:43Z

RossC: Dances With Obama

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]

== Disgusted Conservative ==

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

==Nation of Islam==
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==57 Islamic states==

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. unsigned JohnFA

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Biased==
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==

there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-08-16T16:20:35Z

RossC:

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good film (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:If the National Review is clueless, why is one of their articles currently featured on the Main Page?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end. While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying? That realism was omitted. So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting. It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children). One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie. The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list. Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation. Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked. The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values. A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them. ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard. As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else. I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film. But I don't really see it. Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't know about the jingoism criticism. But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target. It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia. Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness. Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

: This is tricky, because Gump is an idiot. I can't tell from the quoted excerpts if the movie is mocking religion or not. Maybe I need to watch the whole movie. However, I tried that once and for reasons already explained (including its anti-intellectualism and liberal sermonizing) I found something better do after watching the first half-hour or so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is worth watching again. I don't think they were mocking religion (although some scenes were certainly light-hearted or attempts at humour). Gump had the mind of a child, and he had the trust and faith of a child - he trusted his mother and was guided by her advice throughout his life, he had faith that his mother was in heaven, and he had faith that there was a God who was watching over and guiding him. He made mistakes along the way, but then we all do. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I more or less agree with Andy here. Forrest does take his faith seriously and it does guide him. However, since the rest of the movies portrays him as being naive and stupid (there is one scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a prostitute, but it's actually because he's too stupid to realize what a prostitute is), so it's not necessarily a positive portray of faith. My final verdict: Interesting movie, not conservative at all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:Was he too stupid, or too naive? They aren't the same thing. I think it would be a great thing if none of us had to know what a prostitute is. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:38, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:He was retarded, but he was certainly capable of understanding that a prostitute has sex for money. My point was that up until that point, Gump had lived a life that didn't involve meeting prostitutes or talking about prostitutes. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

What I saw of Forrest Gump was very [[liberal]], which is not surprising given that Tom Hanks is very [[liberal]]. The movie has the quality of [[liberal]] elitism, dumbing down the character and the audience to spoon-feed them some propaganda. Sermonizing about the 1960s, for example. The religious references described above seem more like mockery than authentic. The faith of a simpleton is not silly or foolish. [[Louis Pasteur]], far brighter than we are, said that he hoped to die with the powerful faith of French peasant, for example.

Beyond that, the Forrest Gump has an Oprah Winfrey-like style of unrealistic idiocy. Gump fails to given a realistic portrayal of an idiot. Instead, the movie seems to view its audience as idiots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Back to SPR. Andy, I'm not a liberal, and while I'm right of center, I'm not as far to the right as you are. Speaking from thirteen years service (USMC), I can tell you most Marines and soliders do curse (a hell of alot more and far more colorfully than was portrayed in the movie), and while you do find the occasional guy who reads his pocket New Testament and goes to services, they are the exception and not the rule. Most men in these units are at best, nominal Christians, and SPR is a realistic depiction of combat and men in combat. BTW, I don't think Hanks was really portraying any particular individual; SPR was historical fiction. As far as SPR or Gump being liberal, I don't think they are slanted to the right or left either way. I don't think most people watch a movie and think "this is liberal" or "this is conservative," with the exception of Micheal Moore films, and a few Susan Sarandon films that promoted a particular agenda. By the way, my remark about the folks with faith being less intelligent was inspired by your (unintentionally humourus) remarks above. God Bless--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 09:07, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Eddiec, you've already mocked Christianity and the mentally disabled so your description of the military, even if you did serve 13 years in the Marines, is of little value. Christians formed the backbone of our military and I think you're making your comments up, or you're seeing only what you want to. Note, by the way, that SPR portrays the military during WWII. Do you claim that you served in that also??? That there were only nominal Christians in that war also, per your experience???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Andy, I did not mock Christianity; I mocked you. WWII was before my time, but I think my serivce has value. I saw other Marines everyday and interacted with them. Do you have military experice Andy? Have you interacted with Marines and soldiers on a daily basis? Perhaps you are making things up or creating a fantasy where military people do not cuss and sit around reading the Bible.THey are far more likely to be reading Playboy. Actually, they are more likely to be reading something far worse (at least by your lights)--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 10:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to defend the possible conservativeness of Gump here. Very early on, for example, FG and his best friend Jenny pray for God to save her from her abusive father, and He does. Later in the movie, Forrest the Soldier is the Good Guy, and the peacenik hippies are clearly the Bad Guys. As mentioned above, too, Lt Dan doesn't find satisfaction in life until he makes peace with God. Then there's the scenes where FG goes running, and ends up with a whole crowd of doofus followers, demonstrating the danger of false prophets. And of course, the character of Jenny throughout the film demonstrates the danger of hedonism. I don't recall feeling that any of this was mocking religion. (And, not incidentally, FG isn't a "retard" or an idiot--his character is that of the proverbial Innocent)--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that Gump is a conservative movie. It emphasizes the importance of family (Gump's interaction with his mother and his child) and there are Christian overtones throughout. Yours in Christ--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 15:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Home Alone ==

DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all. The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism. This movie has got to be removed. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:They abandoned their child. A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident. That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.

:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons. First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias. Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims. Self-defense does not apply. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously. I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't remove this without talking on here; as Mr. Schlafly stated, LiteratiChamp isn't to be taken seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm to be taken seriously, and I raise all the arguments LiteratiChamp has. There, you lose again. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

So I lose just because you argue against me? That's brilliant debate tactics right there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:37, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:Don't pretend to be stupid. You lost the argument before, and if you are serious to demand that we re-raise the issue instead of deal with what has already been laid out, you will lose again. Your movie supports child-abuse and unnecessary violence. Quit being a vandal. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Just because it notes the presence of child abuse doesn't mean it supports it. It doesn't condone child abuse! Oh, and I'm not a vandal. I've been contributing on this site for several months, almost from the beginning. And what have you contributed? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Literati and Alec on this one. There were a lot of [[liberal]] undertones throughout the movie. --[[User:TUgoh|TUgoh]] 16:17, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==World Trade Center==

I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== V for Vendetta ==

This movie should definitely be taken out of the list! The creators of the graphic novel wrote it in part as a slam of Margaret Thatcher's policies. The movie itself contains many references to 'the downfall of the US starting with the Iraq war' and how the 'US dragged the whole world into war' and the 'oppresion of gays and lesbians', and 'government sponsored camps for minorites and Muslims'. Not to mention the glorification of terrorism as a justifiable means to an end and the crypto-Christian 'state religion' and how that opposes any other religions. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]

: Done. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Team America: World Police ==

I honestly can't believe no one has mentioned Team America. It makes fun of the U.N. (and their irrelevance), Michael Moore, liberal Hollywood, the gay agenda in broadway musicals. It shows terrorists and Kim Jong Il for who they are, and has an overall conservative point of view.
:That was the movie that got in trouble because of the puppet sex, right? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

::I watched it last week. It does not have a distinctly conservative point of view. It simply makes fun of everyone. After decades of only having movies make fun of conservatives, this may seem like "fair and equal" treatment, but I was not amused (see [[moral equivalence]]).

::I will grant you that there were some conservative ''points'' made in the movie: that actors support dictators, is one. But showing the "good side" as sophomoric, bickering perverts is not particularly conservative. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:13, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of the book "South Park Conservatives", for good reasons, and obvious ones at that... it's one of those that can go either way, honestly. I like the movie, but I think it probably shouldn't be on our list, because, well, of the content. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Star Wars]] ==

[[Star Wars]] certainly looked like a fable concerning the triumph of good against evil. But that was before the prequels came out. ''Revenge of the Sith'' said it all.

The problem: the Galactic Empire is a metaphor for the [[United States]]. It started out being a metaphor for [[Nazi]] [[Germany]]--but clearly [[George Lucas]] is one of those who equates [[George W. Bush]] to [[Adolf Hitler]].

The particular enemies of the Old Republic looked like a metaphor for Muslims; I couldn't be sure.

But did anyone notice that Galactic Imperial personnel were all [[Caucasian]] and exclusively male? Furthermore, the officers all spoke either with [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[United States|American]] accents. (The troopers don't matter anymore; we now know that they are all clones of Jango Fett.)

More to the point: the rebels were the "diverse" lot.

Hint, hint--diversity is good; a unified culture is evil.

I therefore respectfully recommend that we scratch [[Star Wars]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:All of that is speculative, unless you have a reference for Lucas deliberately drawing a Vader-Bush parallel or something like that. Didn't the first three films come out during the Carter-Reagan years? Way before Bush.

:I don't understand the bti about "all male". Armies have always been all-male. At Fort Campbell, I was in an infantry brigade of 1,500 men (and zero women).

:The Galactic Empire represents Imperialism and/or Fascism, and if you followed the politics of the recent three films, you can see how "the chancellor" seized power in a way similar to the way Hitler seized power. A sort of slow motion coup, carried out by parliamentary maneuvering.

:I don't see how Bush getting elected by the people has anything to do with Hitler's rise to power. And Bush's (possibly overzealous) attempts to free people in the Middle East from cruel dictatorships seems rather the ''opposite'' of what Hitler was doing. (And didn't Saddam Hussein kill around 300,000 people with "Death Star" tactics and concentration camps? Who's more the Darth Vader type, Bush or Hitler? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:09, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
So is diversity bad? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:Diversity ''per se'' is not so bad. What's bad is the implication that Western culture is inherently evil.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Episodes IV - VI may have been nice Conservative movies. But the early ones destroyed that image. Look no further, but to the real hero of the first three episodes Obi-wan "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".[[User:Mgroop|Mgroop]] 10:27, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Mgroop's sentiment. The original three movies were nice simple stories of good and evil. The three most recent added elements of moral relativism. And all six are steeped in Hindu teachings.

==Lord of the Rings==

I wonder if this is really appropriate as a conservative film. The film contains a lot of demonic imagery, and many examples of witchcraft. It's very violent, not something I would show my children. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:07, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, it's not appropriate for small children, sure, but it's a very effective story of good battling evil, with a lot of Christian themes. Sauron is pretty much equivalent to the Devil, and I don't think it's going too far to say that Gandalf is in part a Jesus-type figure. In addition, the Ring is a classic example of temptation, a theme that runs throughout the series.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== High Noon ==

If High Noon was written by an ex-Communist, I don't see how it would be anti-American. In fact, I don't recall anything about patriotism either way in the film.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The tripod ref is confusing: [http://drhill.tripod.com/ssi3240/pdf/lecture8.htm] It says Americans have the right to belief as they want, as long as they don't advocate overthrowing the government. But it also complains that SAG vowed not to hire actors and writers who belong to groups which "advocate overthrowing the goverment. Doctor Hill can't have it both ways. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:02, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' ==

I question whether these movies should be included here. They are based on liberal, populist ideas that are hokey and don't reflect reality. The first has as its hero a man who runs an S&L and as its villain a banker. The second subscribes to the point of view that big business controls Washington. I would propose removing them. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:Obvious troll. A warning would be appropriate, IMO. --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 23:09, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

*Traditional Conservative's would see the point, not reject it! We are not pro big business, for the sake of big business, and the Savings and Loan idea is a conservative one, reflecting local control, and de-centralization of banking, away from Washington, and to the local communities. Liberalism supports more central control, and an elitist, anti-individual POV...wherein only the elite of D.C. know what is best for the people. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:06, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sheesh, the ''bank'' was locally controlled also in the first film. Even today's multistate banks aren't really controlled from Washington (unless you count the government regulation). Savings and loans were promoted during the New Deal (when the film is set) by the very "elite of D.C." that you deplore, based on the idea that people were being hoodwinked by their local capitalist bankers.
:As to the second film, it's not so much that being pro-business is necessarily ''required'' to be conservative, it's more that a particular view of it, as a moustache-twisting villain that the people have to be saved from by government (promoted in that film), that is a typical part of the liberal world view. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 08:28, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Personally, I see additional reasons to reject It's a Wonderful Life. It strikes me as conveying a humanist message in a quasi-religious wrapper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:11, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Three Godfathers ==
By this do you mean ''The Godfather'' and the two sequels (Conservative as a detailed portrayal of the moral corruption of organised crime), or am I missing something and there is a film of this name? (I don't get out much) [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:18, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: I think that's what is meant. I never saw the films and, frankly, our list should probably be trimmed and some suggestions, like that one, removed from being called "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks - they are certainly not overtly conservative in message, and very violent (though with the underlying message that crime corrupts). [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:::It was probably in reference to one of two westerns titled "Three Godfathers". I haven't seen either of them, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== The Exorcist? ==

I've never seen it, but my pastor says that it is a Satanic movie. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Your pastor is right. The movie displays [[Satan]] and all his hideous attributes: vulgarity, irrationality, hatred for life, delight in harming people, etc. But the movie highly respects Christianity's attempt to combat evil. Indeed, the movie suggests that ''only'' Christianity is willing and equipped to fight the evil. I won't spoil the ending. I recommend you rent and see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== To Kill A Mockingbird ==

A truly inspiring movie. Can I add it to the list? Long-time lurker, first time editing --[[User:Martib|Martib]] 20:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

: Didn't see it, but I don't think it was particularly [[conservative]]. Why might you think it was?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Seems conservative to me. Teaches that all people are created equal and no one deserves any other rights than anyone else. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is more to the movie than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, like what, if I may ask? --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You tell us, if you think the movie deserves inclusion. The movie certainly entails more than the mundane truism that all people are created equal and no one deserves special rights not enjoyed by others. Tell us what you think is so special about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, religion is certainly one aspect of it. The movie seems deeply rooted in Christianity, as the people are church goers. In one particular scene, one of the main characters must shoot a dog in order to protect his family, thereby invoking the Second Amendment. It is a movie with good values. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 14:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Gee, JMarks, you're not a professional movie reviewer in your spare time, are you??? Your analysis astutely focuses right on the heart of the movie's message!!! Yeah, right, it's a Second Amendment movie! Try comedy next, JMarks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

''To Kill a Mockingbird'' does not espouse conservative values? Really? I must wonder Aschlafly if you've seen the movie (or better yet, read the book), because TKaM is a fine example of storytelling.Upon rereading I see that you '''did''' say you hadn't seen it, mea culpa. It conveys the need for a strong character in the midst of unusually difficult circumstances; to strive for the principle of the rule of law to overcome deeply ingrained cultural "norms" that turn normal God-fearing folk into a horde of mindless vigilantes. It also portrays the family as the basic unit of society '''and''' the importance of family in teaching that the values that sometimes permeate society at-large do not necessarily reflect those of a respectful, just and honorable [read conservative] way of life. -[[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:31, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Excuse me, Mr. Schlafly, but you criticize me for my talents as a "movie reviewer" and disparage my comment on the second amendment, when you created the site that condones criticizing Mark Wahlberg because of something his character did in a movie? Seems you are the one making sweeping generalization about a small point in a movie. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Recommendation for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to be added to the list ==
Here's why: it like Star Wars (and even moreso) is a simple movie of good and evil. The villian of the movie engages in sorcery. The hero prays. The villian is sent to her death by a timely lightening strike from above.

== Recommendation for Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World to be added to the list ==

Here's why: it tells a story that focuses on duty. As but one example, the ship's doctor voluntarily passes on his personal goals in order to alert the captain of the presence of the enemy ship. Only unpleasant aspect is overly violent final fight.

== Recommendation that The Patriot be removed from the list ==

Here's why: it is my opinion that The Patriot is nothing more than a revenge tale packaged in an American history wrapper. It's Death Wish meets Johnny Tremain. One issue that makes the movie unpleasant is that Mel Gibson's character speaks out against an American separation from Britian at the beginning. He only becomes a patriot when his son is killed, giving the message that patriotism relates to a "not in my backyard" mentality.

==The Day After Tomorrow==

The movie not only upholds the theory of global warming but has a plot revolving around human activity (ie releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere) causing an ice age which brings worldwide destruction. It is, in effect, the fictional twin to ''An Inconvenient Truth'' (if that didn't already contain enough fiction). Given the entry contained deceit (claiming that the movie portrayed human activity against global warming as bringing about the ice age, which is totally false) then it is clearly a parody added to sully the entry, and the contributor should be blocked. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:39, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, I've demanded an explanation from Qprime, who inserted that movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:47, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

Great catch on removing "Forrest Gump," Norman! I removed that a long time ago from this entry.

Forrest Gump is one of the most liberal -- and most idiotic -- movies of all time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

==List Needs an Urgent Review==

There are some movies which are anything but conservative which have been on the list for months (Little Miss Sunshine, a movie which claims to be about the importance of families but instead features a dysfunctional family which only comes together to support the actions of a heroin snorting paedophilic grandfather). This list needs to be carefully scrutinised to make sure all parodist entries are removed! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:52, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Minor note about the movie---the grandfather is not a pedophile. Continue with discussion. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:42, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

And ''It's a Wonderful Life''?? One of the more liberal movies of all time. The hero, George Bailey , is the quintessential bleeding-heart lib, and the villan is a nasty stereotype of a conservative businessman. The plot/moral revolves around how if we all give up our material desires and share and share alike, all will be happy and sweet. The movie's a whitewash of socialism.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:20, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-08-12T13:58:40Z

RossC: mystery explained--doesn't anyone here use Google?

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

=="Gaffes"==
In the George W. Bush article, Bush's many mangled and incorrect statements ("Bushisms") are dismissed as simple mistakes which draw exaggerated attention because of Mr. Bush's very prominent and public position. However, Obama's own gaffes are used as evidence for his ignorance and incompetence. This doesn't seem very consistent. --[[User:Kahazul|Kahazul]] 17:03, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

: The inconsistency is by liberals. Compare how they treated one gaffe by [[Dan Quayle]] to multiple, more serious gaffes by [[Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:: That didn't really answer the question. You changed the focus to liberals by stating that Quayle got treated worse for his gaffes, but didn't explain why Bush's gaffes aren't treated the same as Obama's. Are you rebutting the criticism by basically saying liberals did it first? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::: If Bush's gaffes reflected an ignorance or disdain about America and American history, as Obama's gaffes reflect, then we would include them. But Bush's don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: So, for instance, let's say John McCain says something along the lines of, "We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure and defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world." That would be an acceptable quote to put on his page, since it shows an ignorance or disdain about American history, since the war in Afghanistan would be the first major conflict since 9/11. Am I correct? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, Afghanistan would not be considered a "major conflict" in historical terms. At a minimum there is reasonable grounds for disagreement about that.

::::: I've addressed your issue. Now it's time for you to address the inconsistency between liberals' treatment of gaffes by Obama and Quayle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That was before my time (and I considered myself a conservative at the time), but I don't speak for all liberals. On the flipside, you are the owner of CP, hence my questions to you specifically. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:30, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: In other words, I answered your question of me, but you won't answer my similar question of you. [[Clarence Darrow]] pulled a similar stunt on [[William Jennings Bryan]] at the [[Scopes Trial]]. Bryan answered Darrow's questions but then Darrow broke his promise and refused to answer Bryan's questions. It's not a new liberal tactic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:40, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Okay, you want an answer, happy to provide (although, again, I'm not answering for all liberals, and you bringing in a Darrow reference doesn't fortify your argument): he was already the v.p. as opposed to being a nominee and was not known for his rhetorical skills, as opposed to Obama. Secondly, the traditional media has a tendency to identify specific traits and building the entire image around those traits. Hence, Gore become the exaggerator or liar after his Internet remark, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, Bush became the cowboy, despite having bought the ranch shortly before his run for president, and praised as the CEO president, despite a record of failed business ventures. So the traditional media have a tendency to pick and run with certain images, and conservatives and liberals alike tend to follow and accept those storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

==Most Liberal?==

What about Bernie Sanders?

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you read the article correctly, you would know that Obama is a secret Muslim--[[User:Ivysaur|Ivysaur]] 17:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::Franklin Graham (son of Billy) tried to find out is Obama was a Christian. It looks like the answer is no![http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68581]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 16:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Actually, the quote from that article is that Obama said, 'Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people.' when asked if he believed that Jesus was the only way to salvation. All of the accusations in that article indicating that he is a Muslim have already been cited (from the original sources, not an article which cites them in turn) on this or the main page. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to get to "informative truth," why isn't the top of John McCain's page about how he sold other POWs out, didn't pay his taxes, and left his crippled wife in the 70's for a beer fortuness that was worth 100 mil and was 18 years younger than him? That would seem biased and mean toward McCain, wouldn't it? Yeah, it would, and it's no different here. We need to have respect for Republicans and Democrats alike, especially the two men who one of them is going to be the President by next January. [[User:Impm|Impm]]

I think the criticisms should be entered under a seperate section. It's dripping off with political bias.[[User:Swatje|Swatje]]

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

Nothing new to add here, except to marvel at the fact that the line is still there and unchanged three months later. I would have thought they'd at least change "likely" to "possible".--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Anti-Soldier Candidacy" ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I know many leftists, and none of them seem to hate soldiers. One of my good friends is extremely left-wing (has gay parents), and is ''in'' the military. I'm not sure the "General Betrayus" comment was necessarily anti-military, it seemed more anti-a-specific-person. And what about all of the pro-veteran bills being introduced by Democrats? I think it's ''without a doubt'' that many leftists are anti-war, but I think it's a stretch to say they're anti-soldier.--[[User:Cockamamie|Cockamamie]] 12:32, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, but McCain accepted 300k from a man who likened rape to bad weather, saying that "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He also told a female competitor for Governor of Texas, the office he was running for, that he would "hog her and tie her and drag her through the dirt." McCain accepted 300,000 dollars for his campaign that this man raised. So I suppose McCain is a raging sexist, too?

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

:: Might not be good enough for this page; they don't seem enough like angry black militants.

Michelle Obama was raised in a middleclass home. She attended an ivy legue college. Might she be the first affirmative-action First Lady, if, a big if BO makes it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:So only rich white people get into an Ivy League college on their own merit? If you are middle-classed and black, it's automatically affirmative-action? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:18, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

The sentence which indicates that Obama wearing a flag pin "might be political pandering" has no reference and no basis in verifiable fact. This comment should be removed. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] is what you are looking for. It seems to me that the first step in complying with this template would be to move most of the intro into the relevant sections in the article. The intro should only include "'''Subject's Name''' (in bold) followed by a brief synopsis of notable positions held or sought." ~ [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 11:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The references being used for this section are incorrect. If you follow the link on the pages you eventually get to this page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html. There it states: Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The statement being made is blatantly false and has been addressed by the university of Chicago.--[[User:Redragon104|Redragon104]] 14:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why WOULD he change his name?===
The entire portion of the article that discusses this is ridiculous. Why should a person change their name at all? It's similar to saying that a person named Weinstein should change their name if they were a Christian, because "Weinstein" is a Jewish name. This portion of the article has no purpose and should be removed. If you want to show why Obama is a poor choice for president, do so. But juvenile attacks like this just make the people doing it look silly. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 11:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Spot on-- This dirty Muslim clearly mixed up the number of states in the glorious USA with the number of non-observer states in an obscure organization! There is no WAY he could've misspoken, saying fifty-seven instead of fourty seven! [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 18:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Saul didn't change his name to Paul. At one point Luke says, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and carries the account on from there. This occurs several chapters after his conversion, and it is simply a Greek form of Saul's Hebrew name. For heaven's sake. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 16:05, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Under Published criticism, A fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution. Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html] , http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rel_dobson_obama/2008/06/23/106961.html, June 23, 2008</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
--[[User:Thedude|Thedude]] 20:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, but it's not so much the attacks as the nit picking nature of them- we've got calling a senior lectureship a professorship, saying 57 instead of 47, the fact that his uncle helped liberate a different concentration camp, the fact that he has no executive or military experience (I've been wondering about the executive part- is that refering to presidential experience?)... it all just seems a bit overplayed. [[WillD]]
::I agree, nitpicking is a good way to look at it. The article has missed the forest for the trees and, to further our usage of cliches, is missing the broad strokes. Although the executive experience part I believe refers to never holding a position similar to President but on a lower level; i.e., he's never been a governor, a mayor, or any other such position.--[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::: ''"article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations"'' Hmmm, if there wasn't references, you might have had a valid point.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's the usage of sources and the presentation of them that is problematic. This article, instead of finding sources and writing an article based off of them, is making claims and then adding "sources" that loosely connect them. An example is the Kenyan father thing; he says his father was a Muslim-turned-atheist, but the article indicates that because less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, it's impossible. You don't see the problem with that? Even ignoring that Obama himself says his father was an atheist (and who, despite being abandoned by him, knew him far better than any of us), it isn't possible Obama Sr. is one of those less than 1% of Kenyans?
:::: And if that isn't enough, here's an interview by British newspaper The Guardian with [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/barackobama.uselections2008 one of Obama Sr.'s daughters by another mother], who says "His [Barack's] father was never a Muslim although he was born into a Muslim family with a Muslim name." That would be a proper source, if it weren't for the fact that it completely contradicts what's written. The Muslim insinuations should be removed. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:46, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: The entry is factual. Obama's self-serving claim that his father was an atheist has all the plausibility of anything else that occurs less than 1% of the time. That Obama asserts that this was true before Obama could have possibly known (e.g., before Obama was born) only adds to implausibility of it.

::::: By the way, your quote (also self-serving) by Obama's relative does not indicate that Obama Sr. was an atheist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

She doesn't say he was an atheist, but she does say he was not a Muslim. And I doubt that a woman who apparently has never left Kenya would have much to gain by lying about her father's religious beliefs. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 18:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: But you missed the point, perhaps intentionally: Obama claimed Obama Sr. was an atheist, a claim having an obvious effect of appeasing both atheists and Christians. Too bad that it is so implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== President experience ==

Abraham Lincoln had 2 years in the house and 8 years in the state legislature. JFK was 8 years in the senate and 6 years in the house. Madison was 8 years in the house and 4 years in state legislature. Hoover was 7.5 years in the cabinet - was never in the state legislature, governor, house, or senate. Harrison was 6 years in the senate. http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html goes into the various experience of various presidents. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==James Dobson on Obama==
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, points out that Obama distorts the Holy Bible for his own political ends [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama]--[[User:Goodman|Goodman]] 22:05, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::James Dobson was apparently not listening closely to his speech. Obama's point was that policy should be made by people who don't automatically use Christian principles alone to make decisions. The reasons for policy decisions should be made accessible by people of all affiliations, not just Judeo-Christian ones. Dobson is just angry because his name was mentioned in a speech by a liberal candidate. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Is it me or do liberals always need others to explain what they have said?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Islamic holidays==
"However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. ". What are we suggesting he should have done, in a country where the schools close for Islamic holidays? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 22:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

For today, he should enlighten us all to his past. He refuses to give us much detail. When you are running for the highest office in the land, nothing can be hidden. Did he go home and watch TV during his days off? Maybe he celebrated the Holidays by attending a Mosque. What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining. He grew up in a predominate Muslim country. He left a Christian school after two years. The rest has yet to be explained.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because you don't know something you think it has to be explained? Would you like to describe for us what you did on every holiday you took off school? Maybe you spent them attending meetings of the Communist party? "What we don't know he can easily cast aside by explaining." [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What difference does it make what he did? You would think we'd be better off focusing on his foreign and energy policies than pondering what he did with his free time when he was 10. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I would focus on his foreign and energy policy, if he had one! The little he has accomplished, I disagree with completely.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Didn't want you to hurt yourself with actually, you know, looking, so here you go, Jpatt: [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ Foreign Policy] and [http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Energy Policy] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

: yawn, much talk but nothing of logic--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:16, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative Action?==
The line "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" should be replaced with "If elected, Obama would be the first African-American Affirmative Action President." By Conservapedia's definition, many white male Presidents did benefit from their "race or gender", and qualify as Affirmative Action Presidents.

: Agreed. By Conservapedia's definition of "Affirmative Action President," George Washington was the first Affirmative Action president.

: I think the main problem is not the phrasing of the claim but rather the claim itself. Not only does it insinuate that Obama has done absolutely nothing noteworthy in his entire life, but it is also inherently racist. I'm a conservative and will be voting for John McCain, but I really don't think he'd approve of this either. This website seems to approach politics like it's some kind of all-out war in which you should do anything, from lie to slander to smear to win. That's just wrong. This article, this Obama article, is giving us conservatives a bad name. If Obama loses this election, it should be on his policies and ideas, not because someone told everyone he was a Muslim.

==Barack Obama Visits Wounded War Veterans==
Barack Obama makes a surprise visit to wounded war veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html], http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html ,AP Barack Visits Wounded Vets, June 28, 2008 </ref> The visit wasn't on his public schedule.

In the past, Obama criticized the Bush administration for veterans treatment returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since becoming a US Senator, it has taken Obama more than 1270 days or three and a half years to visit our countries finest wounder soldiers in Washington, D.C.
:I assume you specifically mean the ones at Walter Reed, since he's visited [http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_veterans/2008/06/28/108211.html other] veterans in the past. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

==Place of birth==
Last week on talk radio (the Shaun Hannity program I think) they raised the issue of where Barack Obama was born. Apparently, his campaign cannot produce a birth certificate. If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:08, 29 June 2008 (EDT).
:Technically they produced an image of his [http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert birth certificate]. Sean Hannity and Right-Wing blogs question its authenticity. This feeds into the "He's a foreigner! Scary!" meme. If you don't think he's a citizen and isn't eligible to be President, telling CP probably won't do much. Instead, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate federal agency and tell them. Although, since elections are technically handled state-by-state, you will probably need to contact the Secretary of State for each state and file your complaint. Would you like help locating those agencies to check into your allegations? Of course, one should be mindful, as I wonder whether this type of accusation would be considered "libel".--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::He should be required to produce an authentic certificate, issued by the state of Hawaii. As for libel, that is simply a liberal scare tactic. Truth is a perfect defense against libel. After all, you don't see Richard Lenski trying to sue Andy Schlafly do you? That's because he knows that Andy's doubts about his research are true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 13:55, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Who should he be required to produce it to for verification? Again, if you think that he isn't constitutionally qualified, the onus falls on YOU to request that he provide verification. The requests should be sent to the Secretaries of State, as they are the ones who are in charge of elections in each state. So if you believe it so firmly, do something about it. Don't sit here and complain, go out and force it. Or are you going to just grumble about it and make accusations without following up? And as for Lenski suing Schlafly--I don't think CP's questions have done any "harm" to Lenski's reputation and the time of going through and filing a lawsuit for libel? You'd be up in arms claiming it was a waste of the court's time to hear that case. Seems if Lenski doesn't file a lawsuit you'll say it's because he knows he's wrong, and if he does file a lawsuit, you'll say it's a waste of time. So that example doesn't really hold any water, in my book. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:45, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::That's a good point. I'll add it to [[Lenski]]'s page. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:30, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Well when you get a job with the government (Senator falls in this category) you have to give the US Government your birth certificate. If it was false something would have come up earlier. If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else.

::::: "If it is good enough for the US Government it should be good enough for everybody else." I'm afraid you may be on the wrong site, my friend. We tell the truth here regardless of what other people may or may not accept.

::::: The standards for confirming legal status for a government employee are not, obviously, as high as the standards for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution by a potential U.S. President.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::What evidence would be acceptable proof of his being born in the US? I'm fairly certain that I could find such evidence, if I knew what would be considered valid. [[User:Ithig|Ithig]] 17:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Here is a link to a story regarding the birth certificate story. Obama may be in trouble if the Republicans have the gumption to pursue this.[http://americatalks.blogspot.com/2008/06/birth-certificate-could-doom-obama.html]--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 08:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: The US Government would know where Obama was born. I think they would've spoken out and say "hey wait a minute" at some point in the past year and a half he's been running this campaign.

::::World Net Daily and The National Review (both trusted Conservapedia sources) acknowledge the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and consider it a non-issue.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66991

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=

Could some sysop please delete the word "alledged" from the birth information? I would do it myself (and do a productive edit) but the page is locked. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 14:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Why hasn't anyone made this change? It is absolutely clear that even trusted conservative sources don't think that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Continuing to suggest otherwise is just a infantile smeer. Isn't any sysop gutsy (or fair) enough to make the change? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

== Death Knell for Affirmative Action? ==

Interesting article related to the opinion that Obama is an affirmative action candidate. It says that, in actuality, Obama proves [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/28/affirmative-action-hurt-by-obamas-success/ there's no need for affirmative action]. "Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy he supports.
Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender
for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?" --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 13:51, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== List of Obama VP's refusing to take the number 2 job==

* Ted Strickland (D) Governor of Ohio
* Jim Webb (D) Senator of Virginia
* Jack Reed (D) Senator of Rhode Island
* Claire McCaskill (D) Senator Missouri
* John Edwards (D) Frm. Senator N. Carolina

==Employment while a student==

Does two summer jobs in six years at university count as "working your way through"? Even liberal Newsweek calls this [http://www.newsweek.com/id/144336 a bit of a stretch]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

That section should be revised , it currently says that Obama 'apparently did not hold any jobs during college or law school'. Wouldn't something along the lines of 'however his campaign can only provide information of two jobs held during those years' be more accurate? [[User:tordenvaer|tordenvaer]] 16:59, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

==Double up==
Hi,
This page is locked so I cant fix it but the whole intro is repeated under the section Published Criticism? Can someone fix?
Thanks!
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:39, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

==Flip-flopping==

Can we include a section that specifically talks about his changes in policy positions (AKA flip-flops). This will help to accurately portray him in terms of what he is willing to do to win an election.

== Allegedly?!?!?! ==
Is there any real reason to believe he wasn't born in Honolulu?[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 19:11, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

== Why can't I add link to his voting record? ==

See http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Why can't I edit this article and add his voting record information? What is controversial about this? I am reticent to say anything because of the 90-10 rule thing. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 14:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. Yesaliberal 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. Learn together 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
And the Obama article? --Jareddr 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. Learn together 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --Jareddr 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. Learn together 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:John_McCain"

==Fake image==
That image of Obama during the pledge is a terrible photoshop job. Look at the bottom of the flag. The last red stripe kind of bends into nowhere, not to mention that the people look way too small according to the distance. Someone please remove this cheap trick. [[User:Jedibob5|Jedibob5]] 11:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

==General Things==
Jedibob, the photo isn't a photoshop. The stripe that "bends into nowhere" is actually behind a bale of hay. There's a video of it on Snopes, if you'd care to look at it. However, you'll notice one big thing; it was not the pledge. It was the National Anthem. Though the official code of conduct for it calls that you place your hand over your heart, I've always been taught that standing at respectful attention was just as well. Though I don't think that excuses someone who is running for the President.

Also, I would like to point out that a "state" is defined as any territory controlled by a government, or any politically-united group of people occupying a defined geographical area. In other words, there are states outside of the States. [[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 19:17, 5 August 2008 (CDT)

==Opinion?==
On the commandments page rule #5 states "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry" and Note 4 on the same page says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."

But numerous "sources" linked to on this page are actually opinion pieces on other sites or blogs (for example: 50,52,66,103,104). This is only after a glance, I'm sure there are more. Are these kind of sources acceptable?

In a similar vein, "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President." is also pure opinon. This kind of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry.

May I suggest a cleanup of this page?

--[[User:Proto|Proto]] 15:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Shhh. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 19:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Why do you say, "If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President" is "pure opinion"??? Polling data is factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:What polling data? The affirmative action statements have no reference.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:I'm trying to follow your logic here, you are saying that according to polls, people are planning on voting for Obama purely because of his race and not because they think he is actually qualified? And that would make him an Affirmative Action President? Or what? --[[User:Proto|Proto]] 14:31, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:Or do polls show that most people believe he got where he is due to affirmative action? I could see a poll result like that, but it would still be an opinion.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Pearl Harbor ==
Are you serious? Do you really think he meant an atom bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor? He was born and raised in Hawaii, there's no way he thinks that. It's a clear example of synecdoche on Obama's part, and implying otherwise is petty and misleading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

: Gaffes are revealing moments. Suggest another plausible explanation, if you can think of one. By the way, Obama did NOT go to grade school in Hawaii, so you seem nearly as clueless as he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, A, actually he did, the last two years of it anyway, and apparently junior high and high school, too. [http://starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html]--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 18:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

hmm, could it be that he meant to say bombS? but ACCIDENTALLY said bomb? you are against criticizing bush for mispronunciations, so why do the same thing to Obama?{{unsigned| NoahH}}

: Nice try, but he would have corrected himself if he knew what he was talking about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

: By that reasoning, Bush can be criticized for misstatements/mispronunciations that he failed to correct himself. --[[User:Ank|Ank]] 13:06, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Can we add that picture of him wearing funny clothes and a turban? ==

Just a thought....--[[User:BarbaraBui|BarbaraBui]] 10:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Did Obama think the atom bomb fell on [[Pearl Harbor]]? ==

We really can't include this. This goes beyond what an encyclopedia article is into random speculation. If we leave this in we're inviting anyone to come along and add their own questions to the statements made in the article. It must be removed to keep the article's integrity. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 19:53, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: "DefenderofTrue", how about requesting a change in your name to something real, so that you might obtain some credibility, if that is your concern?

: Questions can sometimes be used to educate, and are sometimes appropriate in an encyclopedia. I bet they can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. So your attempt at [[censorship]] fails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That's a very disturbing position. We could easily go through the article and add lot's of random thoughts and questions to the various sections. I could easily add at the end of the section detailing his early experimentation with illegal drugs a sentence saying "Does this mean he'll support laws easing penalties on young people experimenting with illegal drugs"? I'm sure there are other examples that could apply. If we're serious about being "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" then we have to act like it. It's not necessary for us to throw mud, Obama's record and statements are enough to hang him (metaphorically speaking) all on their own. Sometimes it's better to fight fire with water than with more fire. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 20:11, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, no encyclopedia deletes and censors all questions. This particular question succinctly conveys a powerful, informative piece of information. Yours do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Does anyone else have an opinion on the inclusion of this? I'd like to get more thoughts from other contributors. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 20:25, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I've never seen a question in an encyclopedia. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:48, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

DefenderofTrue, as it reads now the article is one long smear piece. I think much of this has to do with the fact that both Obama and Aschlafly went to Harvard Law and edited the Harvard Law Review. Obama used his gifts, achieved much, and pretty much represents the American dream that one can rise to the top via hard work. Aschlafly was born into wealth, and has achieved little despite his education and advantages. Today he runs this odd website, and "teaches" home schoolers in a basement somewhere. I think that is the real story here.--[[User:Mantle|Mantle]] 22:40, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I've changed the article so that it no longer reads as a question. This should take the "Are questions appropriate in an encyclopedia?" off the table, as I think it was a red herring. The real issue, I think, is whether the description of his gaffe is appropriate. Or whether, if appropriate, the gaffe deserves to be mentioned in the article. I think the answer to both is 'yes'. At any rate, I also think this where the real disagreement is so maybe we can proceed from here? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 08:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students" ==

Do we have ANY evidence of this? There's no source attached to this claim. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: It's a mystery how someone who worked so little, and claims such humble roots, paid for his college and law school educations. Odds seem high that he never paid full freight like most people. Obama could easily tell the truth and dispel the speculation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:18, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Paid full freight? You went to college and law school, Andy. Did you receive no scholarships or federal loans? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You speak in non sequiturs, perhaps to distract attention away from Obama, who has claimed he worked his way through college and law school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm questioning your assertion that "he never paid full freight like most people." I didn't pay full freight, I don't think you paid full freight. I wonder what percentage of college and graduate/law school students pay full freight, i.e. no scholarships or federal loans. But I'd be willing to bet it's less than 90%. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:29, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's bizarre how you think taking out a loan to pay the college in full is not paying full freight. The college receives 100%, and the borrower ends up paying more than 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree it's a mystery, but it's a bit of a jump from that to 'special scholarships'. We could simply state something like "As Obama only worked during summers and did not have many family financial resources to draw on it's unclear how he financed his college and law school attendance." and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from that statement. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:31, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: It's not a question of "how he financed" as much as "if he even paid".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I think we have a problem here. We seem to be breaking two of our own commandments on this article. 1 - "Everything (we) post must be true and verifiable" - we don't know this is true and we certainly can't verify (or haven't verified) it. 2 - "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry" - without attribution or evidence this is indeed just a personal opinion. If we can't follow our own rules we lay ourselves wide open to charges of hypocrisy. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 22:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::DefenderofTrue, be careful. The rules do not apply to sysops, but they do apply to you.--[[User:Mantle|Mantle]] 22:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Is it really necessary to be so snarky? If you have a legitimate complaint, it seems to me your tone will ensure it gets ignored. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 08:50, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 09:19, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

There's no big "mystery" here. Senator and Mrs Obama have made no secret of the fact that they--like many others who did not have wealthy parents--financed their educations largely via student loans. See [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/ this Fox News story], for example.

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-06T17:13:43Z

RossC: totally serious

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-05T18:18:09Z

RossC: causation?

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Republican Party

2008-05-05T13:14:24Z

RossC: Undo revision 447285 by Special:Contributions/Conservarama (User talk:Conservarama)--Vandal

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 First Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Mike Duncan]]
| president = [[George W. Bush]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Fiscal Conservative|Fiscal conservatism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market|Economic liberalism]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a member of the party – and by rules common to both major U.S. parties, its head. Of the two major U.S. parties, the Republican party is the moderate/center-right party. The party has been very successful in Presidential elections: 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections.

The party was born in the early 1850s by anti-[[slavery]] activists and individuals who believed that [[government]] should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, [[Wisconsin]], a small town northwest of [[Milwaukee]]. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in [[Michigan]]. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the [[Democratic Party]].
== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]
[[Image:gop.jpg|right|150px|Official logo of the GOP.]]
The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as [[Indiana]] and [[Ohio]] was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
The fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], oppose the legalization of Gay marriage, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

== History ==

John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican for President in 1856, using the political slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party grew especially rapidly in Northeastern and Midwestern states, where slavery had long been prohibited, culminating in a sweep of victories in the Northern states and the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats and ushering in a new era of Republican dominance based in the immigrant and industrial north and on the end of slavery.

With the end of the [[Civil War]] came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President [[Andrew Johnson]] (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and [[Ulysses S. Grant]], a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. After Reconstruction came to an end, the southern states became known as the "Solid South", giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

States' rights had been a cause in the pre-Republican era, control of the federal government led the Republican Party to be known as the Party of the Union. The unity among veterans that developed in the North after the war led to a string of military men as President, and an era of international expansion and domestic protectionism. As the rural Northern antebellum economy mushroomed with industry and immigration, supporting the rights of the individual, innovation, invention, opportunity, entrepreneurship and business became the hallmarks of Republican policy proposals. From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefited from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America. The Republican Party, therefore dominated national politics--albeit with strong competition from the Democrats, especially during the 1880s. With the two-term presidency of [[Ulysses S. Grant]], the party became known for its strong advocacy of commerce, industry, and veterans' rights, which continues to this day.

During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to [[Grover Cleveland]] (in 1884 and 1892).

The election of [[William McKinley]] in the [[United States presidential election of 1896]] is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. The progressive, protectionist, political and beloved McKinley was the last Civil War veteran elected President and embodied the Republican ideals of economic progress, invention, education, and patriotism. He confirmed the Republicans as a pro-enterprise party; his campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was a highly effective political strategist and fund-raiser which meant McKinley outspent his radical rival William Jennings Bryan by a large margin.

After McKinley's assassination, President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] tapped McKinley's Industrial Commission for his trust-busting ideas and continued the federal and nationalist policies of his predecessor. In order to ensure fair competition in the economy Roosevelt took steps to abolish "trusts" or cartels which then dominated many key markets within the economy. This led Republicans into conflict with the most powerful commercial interests in the country, led by John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world.

Roosevelt decided not to run again in 1908 and chose [[William Howard Taft]] to replace him, but the widening division between progressive and conservative forces in the party resulted in a third-party candidacy for Roosevelt on the United States Progressive Party, or "Bull Moose" ticket in the [[United States presidential election of 1912]]. Roosevelt finished ahead of Taft, but the split in the Republican vote resulted in a decisive victory for Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], temporarily interrupting the Republican era.

The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of high tariffs, the promotion of business interests, opposition to the League of Nations, and overall isolationism after Wilson's turbulent internationalism. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively. These years saw the party firmly committed to laissez-faire economics, but the Great Depression cost it the presidency with the election of [[Socialism|socialist]] Democrat [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] in 1932. Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] Coalition controlled American politics for the next two decades, concluding with the two-term presidency of popular World War II hero [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

The post-war emergence of the United States as one of two superpowers and rapid social change caused the Republican Party to divide into a conservative wing (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal wing (dominant in New England) - combined with a residual base of inherited Midwestern Republicanism active throughout the century. A Republican like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose New Deal reforms and continued to champion isolationism. Thomas Dewey of New York represented the Northeastern wing of the party that was closer to Democratic liberalism and internationalism. In the end, the isolationists were marginalized by those who supported a strong U.S. role in opposing the Soviet Union throughout the world, as embodied by President Eisenhower. However, this development did not represent the end of the story. The seeds of conservative dominance in the Republican party were planted in the nomination of conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] over liberal [[Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller|Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate for the [[United States presidential election of 1964]].

Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Affair caused [[Richard Nixon]] to resign under a threat of impeachment by elements within the Democratic Party opposed to U.S. efforts to fight [[Communism|communist]] totalitarianism. Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976, a Washington outsider who would later be regarded as the worst president of the 20th century.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They lived in the Northeast and were attracted to Reagan's libertarian-conservative views, and to his strong stance on national security issues.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defence spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).

The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.

==Presidential dominance==
[[Image:Washington painting at the Oval Office.JPG|right]]
In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).

From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.

Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).

John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the [[United States presidential election, 1960]] as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.

It took the aftermath of the Watergate matter to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.

The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occurred in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.

Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.

In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)

*Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.
*Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.
*FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.
*Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.
*McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.
*Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.
*GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.

Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]