Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

United Kingdom

2007-11-24T18:24:43Z

Setanta:

{{Country
|name =''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional Monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Gordon Brown
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =60,587,300 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}

The '''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''', generally called the '''United Kingdom''' or the '''UK''', is a sovereign [[state]] north west of mainland [[Europe]]. It consists of the nations of [[England]] and [[Scotland]], and the Principality of [[Wales]] - all of which occupy the island of Great Britain, together with the province of [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of Ireland. It attained its current form in 1922 after most of [[Ireland]] was granted independence (although the current name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not adopted until 1927), but its origins can be traced back at least to 1603, when England and Scotland came to be ruled by a single monarch (James I of England and VI of Scotland). England and Scotland were formally united under a single parliament, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on [[1 May]] [[1707]].<ref>Murdoch, Alexander, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/96/96282.html England, Scotland, and the Acts of Union (1707)], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Jan 2007, accessed 1 May 2007</ref>

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its current [[head of state]] is Queen [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]].

[[nationalism|Nationalist]] movements of significant importance exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. The UK's values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], and the UK's contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] (or Episcopalian) Church, a tradition of personal liberty, and the common-law legal system.

==Name==
The '''United Kingdom''' is the shorter name of the state composed of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has existed since 1801, though in 1922 most of Ireland won its independence, and its formal name changed accordingly. The official name is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''. The adjective associated with the United Kingdom is "[[British]]".

* '''Great Britain''' is often used by Americans as a synonym for the UK, but it more properly refers to the largest island in the United Kingdom which contains [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. As a result this term can cause offence in [[Northern Ireland]].
* '''Britain''' is used (without the adjective "Great") as a synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole.<ref>number10.gov.uk - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Countries within a country] - Website of the British Prime Minster.</ref>
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom.

==Anthem==
The ''de facto'' national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. When [[Queen Elizabeth II]] dies or abdicates, her son [[Prince Charles]] will become [[King]], and the anthem will become "God Save the King", with the other words remaining the same (apart from obvious changes in gender pronouns). This same melody is also sung by [[American]] schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".

The constituent nations of the UK have come to have their own anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''[[Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau]]'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''[[Flower of Scotland]]''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''[[Land of Hope and Glory]]'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is most commonly used). In Northern Ireland, the two opposing Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

It should be noted that ''God Save the Queen/King'' is only the national anthem by long usage, since about 1745. It has never been declared so officially.

==People==
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe. The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16. About one-fifth of British students go on to post-secondary education. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are the official churches in their respective parts of the country, but most religions found in the world are represented in the United Kingdom.

A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British, Irish, West Indian, South Asian.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic.
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Religious Beliefs===
According to the 2001 [[Census]] the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||42,079 ||71.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Jedi Knight ||390 ||0.7
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are 'British Crown Dependencies' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer]], [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in soccer, cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). While not possessing the recent sporting success of countries such as Australia, the UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf.

Domestic sport is dominated by soccer with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League of England. Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool are well known sports club brands and maintain followings across the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and TV.

Some sports notable for being more popular in other countries such as American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) traditionally selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the Commons, and the government is dependent on its support.

Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 646-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. The House of Lords has more time than the House of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of April 10, 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Good Friday Agreement provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

Progress has been made on each of the key elements of the Good Friday Agreement. Most notably, a new police force has been instituted; the IRA has decommissioned its weapons, and the security situation in Northern Ireland has normalized. Since 2002, when the last devolved government was suspended, the British Government, with Irish and U.S. support, continued to push Northern Ireland's main parties towards a power-sharing agreement. In October 2006, intense negotiations led to the St. Andrews Agreement, which set up a Transitional Assembly, as the precursor for the return of devolved government. Parties were given until March 26, 2007 to work out arrangements for a power-sharing agreement. As part of these negotiations, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) insisted that Sinn Fein endorse policing structures, a key U.S. objective as well.

In a historic move, Sinn Fein's general membership finally agreed to support policing in late January 2007. New assembly elections were held on March 7, returning the unionist (Protestant) DUP and nationalist (Catholic) Sinn Fein again as the two largest parties. While party leaders Ian Paisley (DUP) and Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) did not reach agreement on power-sharing in time for the March 26 deadline, they did hold a historic joint meeting that day. At the meeting, they agreed to begin a power-sharing government on May 8 with Paisley as First Minister and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein as Deputy First Minister. On May 8, 2007 Paisley and McGuinness took their oath of office in the presence of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, and a bipartisan U.S. presidential delegation headed by Special Envoy Paula Dobriansky, who was accompanied by Senator Ted Kennedy.

While most attributes of government have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, responsibility for security and justice remains in the hands of the Parliament in Westminster. The St. Andrews Agreement envisioned devolution of policing and justice by May 2008. Other outstanding issues relate to continued paramilitary activities. While the IRA has completely decommissioned its weapons and is no longer considered a terrorist threat, a few loyalist (Protestant) paramilitary groups have thus far refused to stand down or decommission. While one large loyalist paramilitary group recently announced it has placed its weapons "out of use", it has not formally decommissioned them. There is also some concern about dissident republican groups who are believed responsible for a number of fire bombs in November 2006 around Northern Ireland.

The United States also is committed to Northern Ireland's economic development, and through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) almost $462 million was obligated to the International Fund for Ireland from 1986 to 2006. The fund provides grants and loans to businesses to improve the economy, redress inequalities of employment opportunity, and improve cross-border business and community ties.

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
*Prime Minister (Head of Government)--The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, MP
*Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs--The Rt. Hon. David Miliband, MP
*Ambassador to the U.S.--Sir David Manning
*Ambassador to the UN--Sir Emyr Jones Parry, KCMG

===Political Conditions===
Tony Blair became the first Labour Prime Minister ever to win a third consecutive term when he was re-elected on May 5, 2005. Labour has a 67-seat majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative (Tory) Party and Liberal-Democrats (LibDems) form the major opposition parties. Blair stepped down as Prime Minister in June 2007. Labour Party leader Gordon Brown succeeded him. The main British parties support a strong transatlantic link, but have become increasingly absorbed by European issues as Britain's economic and political ties to the continent grow in the post-Cold War world. Prime Minister Brown is expected to continue Blair's policy of having the United Kingdom play a leading role in Europe even as the United Kingdom maintains its strong bilateral relationship with the United States. Britain's relationship with Europe is a subject of considerable political discussion in the United Kingdom.

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defense and Foreign Relations==
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defense expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.

The United Kingdom stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The U.K. force in Afghanistan will increase to 7,700 by the end of 2007. U.K. forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, the U.K. has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S. The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner in Operation Iraqi Freedom and continues to have more than 5,000 troops deployed in Iraq to help stabilize and rebuild the country. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasizes close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the United Kingdom's alliance with the United States during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
The United Kingdom has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatized most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The Labour government has continued the privatization policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatization) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.

London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial center. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

The United Kingdom is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is leveling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): $1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2006 est.): 2.8%.
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): $31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas, tin, limestone, iron ore, salt, clay, chalk, gypsum, lead, silica.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d") to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK was one of the three [[European Union]] nations (along with [[Sweden]] and [[Denmark]]) not to join the [[Euro]]. Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are permitted to print their own banknotes, as long as they keep an equivalent amount of sterling in reserve.

==History==
The Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic center in London; a separate but established church; a system of common law; distinctive and distinguished university education; and representative government.

====Union====
Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled under one crown beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom. However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly Protestant, Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home.

Great Britain's industrial revolution greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, the United Kingdom was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. British colonies contributed to the United Kingdom's extraordinary economic growth and strengthened its voice in world affairs. Even as the United Kingdom extended its imperial reach overseas, it continued to develop and broaden its democratic institutions at home.

====20th Century====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; the United Kingdom's comparative economic advantage had lessened, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The losses and destruction of World War I, the depression of the 1930s, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the United Kingdom's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Britain's control over its empire loosened during the interwar period. Ireland, with the exception of six northern counties, gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1921. Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, the United Kingdom, completing a process begun a century earlier, granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand complete autonomy within the empire. They became charter members of the British Commonwealth of Nations (now known as the Commonwealth), an informal but closely-knit association that succeeded the empire. Beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled. Today, most of Britain's former colonies belong to the Commonwealth, almost all of them as independent members. There are, however, 13 former British colonies--including Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and others--which have elected to continue their political links with London and are known as United Kingdom Overseas Territories.

Although often marked by economic and political nationalism, the Commonwealth offers the United Kingdom a voice in matters concerning many developing countries. In addition, the Commonwealth helps preserve many institutions deriving from British experience and models, such as parliamentary democracy, in those countries.

== See also ==

*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== Notes ==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Republic of Ireland

2007-11-24T18:19:59Z

Setanta:

{{Country
|name =''Éire''
|map =Ireland.jpg
|flag =Flag of Ireland.png
|arms =Ireland arms.png
|capital =Dublin
|capital-raw =
|government =Republic and Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Irish and English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Mary McAleese
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =27,133 sq mi
|pop =4,239,848 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$177.2 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$43,600 (2006)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}

'''Ireland''' is a parliamentary democracy in north-western Europe consisting of 26 counties on the island of [[Ireland]].

==Geography==
The island of Ireland is located in the [[Atlantic Ocean]], to the west of Britain. Of the thirty two counties of Ireland, twenty six are in the republic, including all counties in the provinces of Connacnt, Munster and Leinster. Of the nine counties of [[Ulster]], three ([[Cavan]], [[Monaghan]] and [[Donegal]]) are in the republic and the remaining counties remain in the [[United Kingdom]]. The longest river in Ireland, The Shannon -- also the longest in the British Isles -- divides the Republic into a largely urban eastern section, dominated by Dublin, and a more rural, less economically vibrant western area.

==History==

The island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom until 1921. After that the island was partitioned by the British into two states, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The proposed self-rule government of Southern Ireland never formally came into being and instead a provisional independent government, the Provisional Government of Ireland was established following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921. The Irish Free State, a dominion nation, was established in December 1922 following ratification of the treaty by Dail Éireann, the Irish parliament.

The Irish Free State ceased to exist in 1937 when the current constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann was adopted. After that the southern state was known as simply "Ireland". However the British and Northern Ireland governments disliked this name and would refer, incorrectly, to the state using its Irish language name, Éire.

The Republic of Ireland was declared in 1949. At this point the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth, severing all political ties with Britain.

==Politics==

The Republic of Ireland uses [[Proportional Representation]] meaning that there are a large number of political parties. The Republic of Ireland has a bicameral legislature, "the Oireachtas". It consists of the 166 seat lower house Dáil(parliament) and the 66 seat upper house, the Seanad(Senate), which both sit in Leinster House, Dublin. In recent times the country has been governed mostly by coalitions generally of either Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats or Fine Gael and Labour. The current government is a coalition of Fianna Fáil, Green Party and Progressive Democrats. The Republic of Ireland is also a member of the European Union and is represented by 13 MEPs. <ref> [http://www.europarl.ie/meps/index.html] </ref>

'''Fianna Fail''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but are generally considered centrist and traditionally the choice for republicans (in the Irish sense, meaning supporters of a United Ireland) due to its foundation by Eamon de Valera; considered by his supporters to be the greatest of all Irish nationalists. Fianna Fail is traditionally a Populist party, spearheading the disease and slum eradication programme's of the 1950's and 1960's. Nowadays however, it is considered to be on the pragmatic centre as well as supportive of the building developers. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>

'''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Traditionally the party of Big Business and the farming community, although generally liberal on social issues (though probably not by American standards) Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. <ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>

'''Labour Party''': The Labour Party has traditionally been the left wing force of Irish politics, though in the recent election under the leadership of a former member of the communist leaning Sinn Fein Workers Party, [[Pat Rabitte]], the party moved over to the centre in order to join in a possible coalition government with Fine Gael. Although they lost the election, the coalition helped to modernise the party more in line with European Social Democratic Groups.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>

'''Progressive Democrats''': The second party in the ruling coalition, it is very right wing on economic issues, favouring low-taxation, pro-business policies, were once liberal on social issues such as divorce and contraception, but now dominate the centre ground on social issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader and Minister for Health of the Republic of Ireland.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>

'''Green Party''': A left-wing party and member of the current leading coalition who are in favour of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Led by John Gormley, the current minister for the Enviorment.

'''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Remnant of Ireland's oldest poltical party, it is closely connected with the Provisional [[IRA]], a terrorist/guerrilla movement that sought a United Irish Republic. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organise in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>

'''Socialist Party''': A left-wing Trotskyite party. They oppose capitalism and seek a United Socialist Ireland. Led by Joe Higgins. <ref> [http://www.socialistparty.net/] </ref>

----

====Taoisigh(Prime Ministers) of the Republic of Ireland====

'''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1937-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.

'''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.

'''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.

'''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973, 1977-1979.

'''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.

'''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.

'''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.

'''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.

'''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.

'''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-Present. <ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1] </ref>

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:Ireland]]

Ireland

2007-11-24T18:19:21Z

Setanta: template moved to the correct article

[[Image:Ireland.gif|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Ireland''' is an [[island]] off the north-western coast of [[Europe]]. Since 1922 it has been divided into two separate entities:
* The '''[[Republic of Ireland]]''' (Irish: ''Éire'') is an independent state which consists of twenty-six traditional counties in the provinces of Munster, Leinster, Connacht, and three of the nine counties of Ulster. According to the last census the Republic of Ireland has a population of 4,234,925<ref>[http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/environment/copy_of_census/]</ref>
*'''[[Northern Ireland]]''' a [[constituent country]] of the [[United Kingdom]] which comprises six counties of the province of Ulster. Northern Ireland has a population of 1,685,267 (2002 est.)<ref>[http://www.nicensus2001.gov.uk/nica/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Demography&mainArea=&mainLevel=]</ref>

==People==
The Irish people are mainly of Celtic origin, with the country's only significant sized minority having descended from the Anglo-Normans. English is the common language, but Irish (Gaelic) is also an official language and is taught in schools.

Anglo-Irish writers such as Swift, Sheridan, Goldsmith, Burke, Wilde, Joyce, Yeats, Shaw, and Beckett have made a major contribution to world literature over the past 300 years.

===Religion===
The Republic of Ireland is predominantly Roman Catholic in religion (86.8%). Atheists and the Non-religious account for 4.4% of the population <ref>[http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Final%20Principal%20Demographic%20Results%202006.pdf ]</ref>while membership of the Church of Ireland runs at about 3%, with most of the rest of the population belonging to other Protestant/Christian denominations. Southern Protestantism had been in decline since independence due to the ''ne temere'' decree(children in mixed Catholic/Protestant marriages had to be raised Catholic) <ref>[http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/ncd05730.htm]</ref> and emigration. However, it has experienced a revival of late due to immigrants and some converts from Catholicism. There is a small Jewish community in Ireland. The Muslim community has grown recently due to immigration. <ref>[http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandsex2002.htm]</ref>

The Republic has maintained a nominally Catholic ethos since independence. Abortion remains controversially illegal (although information on obtaining abortions in other jurisdictions is a constitutional entitlement, and many thousands of women travel to the UK for treatment<ref>[http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/pub/statistical_report_2005.pdf]</ref> ). However, in line with a more general liberalization of Irish society since the early nineties, restrictions on the availability of contraception have been removed; the right to divorce has been enshrined in the constitution; homosexuality has been decriminalized and the rights of gay people have been enshrined in 'Equal Status' legislation.

Northern Ireland has a Protestant majority (53%), the main denominations being Presbyterian and Church of Ireland (Anglican/Episcopal). Roughly 44% of the population are Roman Catholic, with most of the remainder professing no religion. <ref>[http://www.nicensus2001.gov.uk/nica/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Cultural&mainArea=&mainLevel=]</ref>

==Government and Political Conditions==
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state with a parliamentary system of government. The president, who serves as head of state in a largely ceremonial role, is elected for a 7-year term and can be re-elected only once. The current president is Mary McAleese, who is serving her second term after having succeeded President Mary Robinson - the first instance worldwide where one woman has followed another as an elected head of state. In carrying out certain constitutional powers and functions, the president is aided by the Council of State, an advisory body. On the Taoiseach's (prime minister's) advice, the president also dissolves the Oireachtas (Parliament).

The prime minister (''Taoiseach'', pronounced "TEE-shuck") is elected by the Dail (lower house of Parliament) as the leader of the political party, or coalition of parties, which wins the most seats in the national elections, held approximately every 5 years (unless called earlier). Executive power is vested in a cabinet whose ministers are nominated by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dail.

The bicameral ''Oireachtas'' (Parliament) consists of the ''Seanad Eireann'' (Senate) and the ''Dail Eireann'' (House of Representatives). The Seanad is composed of 60 members--11 nominated by the prime minister, 6 elected by the national universities, and 43 elected from panels of candidates established on a vocational basis. The Seanad has the power to delay legislative proposals and is allowed 90 days to consider and amend bills sent to it by the Dail, which wields greater power in Parliament. The Dail has 166 members popularly elected to a maximum term of 5 years under a complex system of proportional representation. A member of the Dail is known as a Teachta Dala, or TD.

Judges are appointed by the president on nomination by the government and can be removed from office only for misbehavior or incapacity and then only by resolution of both houses of Parliament. The ultimate court of appeal is the Supreme Court, consisting of the chief justice and five other justices. The Supreme Court also can decide upon the constitutionality of legislative acts if the president asks for an opinion.

Local government is by elected county councils and--in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford--by county borough corporations. County councils/corporations in turn select city mayors. In practice, however, authority remains with the central government.

Irish politics remain dominated by the two political parties that grew out of Ireland's bitter 1922-23 civil war. Fianna Fail was formed by those who opposed the 1921 treaty that partitioned the island. Although treaty opponents lost the civil war, Fianna Fail soon became Ireland's largest political party. Fine Gael, representative of the pro-treaty forces, remains the country's second-largest party. The Progressive Democrats, Labour, Sinn Fein, and the Greens are the other significant parties.

The May 2007 national elections brought the Fianna Fail party and its leader Bertie Ahern back to power in a coalition government for an unprecedented third five-year term. Coalition members joining Fianna Fail were the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats. In recent months the Mahon Tribunal has been investigating allegations of corruption against the PM when he was Minister of Finance in the early 1990s. However, the PM has not suffered politically -- the coalition remains intact and in September 2007, he survived a vote of no confidence on the issue. Ahern appointed Finance Minister Brian Cowen Deputy Prime Minister (Tanaiste, pronounced "TAW-nish-tuh"). The Foreign Minister is Dermot Ahern (no relation to the Taoiseach).

Local and European elections took place in June 2004 and saw gains for opposition parties. The election also featured a referendum on citizenship. Until that time, Ireland had granted citizenship on the basis of birth on Irish soil. Concerns about security and social welfare abuse prompted the government to seek to bring citizenship laws in line with the more restrictive policies prevalent in the rest of Europe, and the 2004 referendum measure passed by a wide majority. Now, persons with non-Irish parents can acquire Irish citizenship at birth only if at least one parent has been resident in Ireland for three years preceding the birth.

===Political Parties===
* '''Fianna Fáil''': (Pronounced Fee-Na Fall which is Irish for 'Soldiers of Destiny'). Ireland's main political party, they do not class themselves as either left or right wing but rather as pragmatic centrists and republicans (In the sense of opposing the notion of formal classes in society, in particular the monarchy. Typically republicans in Ireland seek to unite Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland into a single Republic separate from the United Kingdom.). The party was founded as a splinter from Official Sinn Féin by Eamon de Valera. Traditionally the party of small farmers and the urban working class community, and generally conservative on social issues. Currently the largest party in the ruling coalition. Led by Bertie Ahern, current [[Taoiseach]]([[Prime Minister]]) of the Republic of Ireland. Fianna Fáil generally opposes any action that would be seen to erode Ireland's neutrality and independence in foreign policy, including joining NATO.<ref>[http://www.fiannafail.ie/]</ref>
* '''Fine Gael''': (Pronounced Finna Gale, Irish for 'Family of the Irish'). Ireland's second largest party. Fine Gael is traditionally socially and fiscally conservative. Under the leadership of [[Garret FitzGerald]] in the 1980's, the party embraced [[social democracy]]. Today the party likes to characterize itself as a party of the "progressive centre". Led by [[Enda Kenny]]. Many of the parties elected members would like to see Ireland join NATO and at least one has called for Ireland to rejoin the [[British Commonwealth]].<ref>[http://www.finegael.com/index.cfm]</ref>
* '''Labour Party''': A social democratic left-wing party, similar to the British Labour Party under [[Tony Blair]]. [[Pat Rabitte]] is the leader of the Labour Party.<ref>[http://www.labour.ie/]</ref>
* '''Progressive Democrats''':It is very right wing on economic issues, favoring low-taxation, pro-business policies, but are very liberal on social issues. [[Mary Harney]] is the current interim leader after the previous leader lost his seat in the last Genreal Election.<ref>[http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/index-main.php]</ref>
* '''Green Party''': A left-wing party in favor of environmental protection, renewable energy and a stronger system of social security. Led by Trevor Sargent.<ref>[http://www.greenparty.ie/]</ref>
* '''Sinn Féin''': (Pronounced Shin Fane, Irish for 'Ourselves') Claims to be a remnant of Ireland's oldest political party, it is closely connected with the Provisional IRA, a terrorist movement that sought a United Irish Republic. They have recently embraced a more democratic approach. They are a party of left-wing socialist economics which espouses liberal social issues such as gay marriage. They organize in all 32 counties of Ireland. Led by Gerry Adams. <ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/]</ref>
* '''Socialist Party''': A left-wing Trotskyite party. They oppose capitalism and seek a United Socialist Ireland. Led by Joe Higgins. <ref> [http://www.socialistparty.net/] </ref>

===Northern Ireland===
Consolidating the peace process in Northern Ireland and encouraging the full implementation of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the 2006 St. Andrews Agreement remain U.S. priorities in Ireland.

The conflict in Northern Ireland stems from a history of British rule, historical animosity between Catholics and Protestants, and the various armed and political attempts to unite Northern Ireland with the rest of the island. "Nationalist" and "Republican" groups seek a united Ireland, while "Unionists" and "Loyalists" want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. After decades of violence by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries, most notably the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the British and Irish governments negotiated an IRA ceasefire in 1994, which was followed by the landmark U.S.-brokered Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in 1998.

The GFA established a power-sharing legislative assembly to serve as the autonomous local government of Northern Ireland. The 108-member Northern Ireland Assembly is led by a first minister and deputy first minister, one from each of the two communities, and a 10-minister executive. The GFA also provided for changes in both the British and Irish constitutions. Ireland ceded territorial claim to Northern Ireland, and the U.K. agreed that Northern Ireland could become part of Ireland if a majority (North and South) so voted in the future. Finally, the GFA provided the blueprint for "normalization," to include the eventual removal of British forces, devolution of police and justice functions, and guarantees of human rights and equal opportunity for all individuals. The agreement was approved in a 1998 referendum by 71% of Northern Ireland voters and 95% of Irish voters.

The major political parties in Northern Ireland are:
* '''Democratic Unionist Party'''(DUP): Currently the largest unionist party in Northern Ireland. The DUP is a right-wing, ultra-conservative, hardline unionist party currently led by its founder, the Reverend Ian RK Paisley. The party has strong links with Rev. Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church. <ref>[http://www.dup.org.uk/]</ref>
* '''Sinn Féin''' Currently the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland, they sit in the Irish parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, but refuse to take their seats in the British Parliament in Westminster.
* '''Ulster Unionist Party'''(UUP): A moderate right-wing party, which had strong links with the British Conservative Party. Nobel Peace Prize laureate David Trimble is a former leader. Currently in decline, with voters turning to the DUP. Currently led by Sir Reg Empey. <ref> [http://www.uup.org/]</ref>
* '''Social Democratic and Labour Party'''(SDLP): A left-wing nationalist party. Nobel Peace Prize laureate John Hume is a former leader. The SDLP were the largest nationalist party until recently, when they were overtaken by Sinn Féin. Unlike SF, the SDLP have always advocated a non-violent and constitutional approach to achieving a United Ireland. Current leader is Mark Durkan. <ref>[http://www.sdlp.ie/]</ref>
* '''Alliance Party''': The Alliance party identifies as neither unionist or nationalist and thus receives support from both communities. The current leader is David Ford. <ref>[http://www.allianceparty.org/]</ref>

In October 2002, the British Government suspended (for the fourth time) the Assembly, following a breakdown in trust between Unionists and Republicans. The British and Irish Governments began discussions with the parties to try to resolve longstanding unresolved differences between the communities, and to secure a commitment from Sinn Fein that Republicans would divest themselves of all paramilitary activities and capabilities. Efforts to restore the political process in time to stage new elections to the Assembly in May 2003 broke down when the two governments concluded they did not have sufficient assurances from the Republicans. However, the governments proceeded to publish a joint declaration, mapping out the timetable to full implementation of the GFA. The governments also created an International Monitoring Commission to serve as a forum to hear complaints of alleged breaches of GFA commitments by the political parties and/or by British authorities. The four-member commission includes a representative from the United States.

Beginning in 2005, there were significant steps to reinvigorate the peace process. In July 2005, the IRA unilaterally announced that it would end its "armed struggle" and rely upon solely peaceful and democratic means to achieve its political objectives. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) confirmed in September 2005 that the IRA had effectively put its weapons "beyond use." A series of reports by the International Monitoring Commission also noted significant progress by the IRA in its move away from criminality. Following upon this momentum, the British and Irish Governments in April 2006 launched a new negotiation process that envisioned the restoration of the Assembly and the selection of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by year's end.

This process led to a summit at St. Andrews, Scotland, in October 2006, brokered by Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Bertie Ahern and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, which achieved agreement between Sinn Fein and the DUP on the process for restoring power to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Elections for the Assembly took place on March 7, 2007, which led to the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly on May 8, 2007. DUP leader Ian Paisley was elected First Minister, while Sinn Fein leader Martin McGuinness became Deputy First Minister. Two breakthroughs enabled this historic agreement to proceed: Sinn Fein's decision at an extraordinary Ard Fheis ("AR-desh," party conference) on January 28 to endorse policing and justice; and the DUP's decision to contest the March 7 election, signaling that the party would agree to share power with Sinn Fein in a restored Assembly. In the meantime, both the British and Irish Governments have offered significant new financial packages for the new Assembly.

The Special Envoy for the Northern Ireland Peace Process is Paula Dobriansky, who coordinates with the U.S. Missions in London, Belfast and Dublin to reinforce the views of the British and Irish Governments that the newly restored Northern Ireland Assembly must govern effectively in order to achieve economic growth and community reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

The United States also continues to provide funding ($13.5 million in 2007) for projects administered under the International Fund for Ireland (IFI), created in 1986 to generate economic opportunity and cross-community engagement in the border areas, both North and South. Since the IFI's establishment, the U.S. Government has contributed over $482 million, roughly half of total IFI funding.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Mary McAleese
*Taoiseach (Prime Minister)--Bertie Ahern
*Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Finance--Brian Cowen
*Ambassador to the United States--Michael Collins

===Foreign Relations===
Ireland is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Union. Ireland has been an important contributor to numerous international peacekeeping missions, such as in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Liberia (UNIMIL), and the Balkans (KFOR and EUFOR). Ireland's overseas development assistance focuses on Sub-Saharan Africa and stands at 5 percent of GDP.

==Economy==
Ireland boasts a vibrant, globalized economy, with GDP per capita second only to Luxembourg's in the EU. The "Celtic Tiger" period of the mid to late 1990s saw several years of double-digit GDP growth, driven by a progressive industrial policy that boosted large-scale foreign direct investment and exports. GDP growth dipped during the immediate post-9/11 global economic slowdown, but has averaged roughly 5 percent yearly since 2004, the best performance for this period among the original EU 15 Member States. Since 2004, the Irish economy has generated roughly 90,000 new jobs annually, attracting over 200,000 foreign workers, mostly from the new EU Member states, in an unprecedented immigration influx. The construction sector has accounted for approximately one-quarter of these jobs, and economists caution that any slowdown in Ireland's vibrant housing market would have ramifications for continued GDP growth.

Economic and trade ties are an important facet of overall U.S.-Irish relations. In 2005, U.S. exports to Ireland were valued at $9 billion, while Irish exports to the U.S. totaled $28 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The range of U.S. exports includes electrical components and equipment, computers and peripherals, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and livestock feed. Irish exports to the United States represent approximately 20% of all Irish exports, and have roughly the same value as Irish exports to the UK (inclusive of Northern Ireland). Exports to the United States include alcoholic beverages, chemicals and related products, electronic data processing equipment, electrical machinery, textiles and clothing, and glassware. According to Ireland's Central Statistical Office, Irish exports to the United States from January to September 2006 rose by 7% compared to the same period in 2005, while Irish imports from the United States from January to September 2006 fell by 14% compared to the same period in 2005.

U.S. investment has been particularly important to the growth and modernization of Irish industry over the past 25 years, providing new technology, export capabilities, and employment opportunities. As of year-end 2006, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Ireland stood at $84 billion, more than double the U.S. total for China and India combined ($31.2 billion). Currently, there are approximately 620 U.S. subsidiaries in Ireland, employing roughly 100,000 people and spanning activities from manufacturing of high-tech electronics, computer products, medical supplies, and pharmaceuticals to retailing, banking, finance, and other services. In more recent years, Ireland has also become an important research and development (R&D) center for U.S. firms in Europe.

Many U.S. businesses find Ireland an attractive location to manufacture for the EU market, since it is inside the EU customs area and uses the euro. In 2005, U.S. firms accounted for 61% of Ireland's total exports of euro 89 billion. Other reasons for Ireland's attractiveness include: a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate for domestic and foreign firms; the quality and flexibility of the English-speaking work force; cooperative labor relations; political stability; pro-business government policies; a transparent judicial system; strong intellectual property protection; and, the pulling power of existing companies operating successfully (a "clustering" effect). Factors that negatively affect Ireland's ability to attract investment include: increasing labor and energy costs (especially when compared to low-cost countries in Eastern Europe and Asia), skilled labor shortages, inadequate infrastructure (such as in the transportation and internet/broadband sectors), and price levels that are ranked among the highest in Europe.

==History==
The earliest inhabitants--people of a mid-Stone Age culture--arrived about 6000 BC. About 4,000 years later, tribes from southern Europe arrived and established a high Neolithic culture, leaving behind gold ornaments and huge stone monuments. The Bronze Age people, who arrived during the next 1,000 years, produced elaborate gold and bronze ornaments and weapons.

The Iron Age arrived abruptly in the fourth century BC with the invasion of the Celts, a tall, energetic people who had spread across Europe and Great Britain in the preceding centuries. The Celts, or Gaels, and their more numerous predecessors divided into five kingdoms in which, despite constant strife, a rich culture flourished.

The coming of Christianity from across the Irish Sea brought major changes and civilizing influences. Tradition maintains that St. Patrick arrived on the island in AD 432 and, in the years that followed, worked to convert the Irish to Christianity.

The pagan druid tradition collapsed before the spread of the new faith, and Irish scholars excelled in the study of Latin learning and Christian theology in the monasteries that flourished. Missionaries went forth from Ireland to England and the continent, spreading news of the flowering of learning, and scholars from other nations came to Irish monasteries. The excellence and isolation of these monasteries helped preserve Latin and Greek learning during the Dark Ages. The arts of manuscript illumination, metalworking, and sculpture flourished and produced such treasures as the Book of Kells, ornate jewelry, and the many carved stone crosses that dot the island.

Two hundred years of Viking invasion and settlement was later followed by a Norman conquest in the 12th century. The Norman conquest resulted in the assimilation of the Norman settlers into Irish society. The English however, long desiring to control Ireland, were unable to bring the entire island under their control until the 17th century, after the defeat of the Irish in the Nine Years War. King James I of England (King James VI of Scotland) decided to plant Ulster, in the North of Ireland, with English and Scottish Protestant settlers, in an attempt to prevent future rebellions.<ref>[http://www.hoganstand.com/general/Identity/stories/ulster.htm]</ref>

In 1690, the Catholic King James II and his Irish allies were defeated by the Protestant William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne. This defeat ushered in an era of Protestant dominance in Ireland. A series of regulations limiting the status of the Catholic majority were passed between 1691 and 1760, known as the Penal Laws. These laws also discriminated against Presbyterians and other dissenting Protestants, who along with Catholics were forced to pay tithes to the Anglican Church.<ref>[http://www.risingroadtours.com/a7_penallaws.htm]</ref> <ref>[http://prorev.com/irish.htm]</ref>

In 1800 the Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union with Great Britain, and Ireland was an official part of the United Kingdom until 1921. Religious freedom, outlawed in the 18th century, was restored in 1829, but this victory for the Irish Catholic majority was overshadowed by a severe economic depression and the great famine from 1846-48 when the potato crop failed. Millions died, and the millions that emigrated spawned the first mass wave of Irish emigration to the United States. A decade later, in 1858, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB--also known as the Fenians) was founded as a secret society dedicated to armed rebellion against the British. An aboveground political counterpart, the Home Rule Movement, was created in 1874, advocating constitutional change for independence.

Galvanized by the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell, the party was able to force British governments after 1885 to introduce several home rule bills. The turn of the century witnessed a surge of interest in Irish nationalism, including the founding of Sinn Fein ("Ourselves Alone") as an open political movement.

Nationalism was and is a potent populist force in Irish politics. A home rule bill passed in 1914, but its implementation was suspended until war in Europe ended. Believing the mantra: "England's problem is Ireland's opportunity," and tapping into a mood of Gaelic revivalism, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly led the unsuccessful Easter Rising of 1916. Pearse and the other 1916 leaders declared an independent Irish republic, but a lack of popular support doomed the rebellion, which lasted a week and destroyed large portions of Dublin. The decision by the British military government to execute the leaders of the rebellion, coupled with the British Government's threat of conscripting the Irish to fight in the Great War, alienated public opinion and produced massive support for Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. Under the leadership of Eamon de Valera, the elected Sinn Fein deputies constituted themselves as the first Dail. Tensions only increased: British attempts to smash Sinn Fein ignited the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921.

The end of the war brought the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921, which established the Irish Free State of 26 counties within the British Commonwealth and recognized the partition of the island into Ireland and Northern Ireland, though supposedly as a temporary measure. The six predominantly Protestant counties of northeast Ulster--Northern Ireland--remained a part of the United Kingdom with limited self-government. A significant Irish minority repudiated the treaty settlement because of the continuance of subordinate ties to the British monarch and the partition of the island. This opposition led to further hostilities--a civil war (1922-23), which was won by the pro-treaty forces.

In 1932, Eamon de Valera, the political leader of the forces initially opposed to the treaty, became Prime Minister, and a new Irish constitution was enacted in 1937. The last British military bases were soon withdrawn, and the ports were returned to Irish control. Ireland was neutral in World War II. The government formally declared Ireland a republic in 1948; however, it does not normally use the term "Republic of Ireland," which tacitly acknowledges the partition, but refers to the country simply as "Ireland."

====Premiers of the Republic of Ireland====
President of the Executive Council

* '''William Thomas Cosgrave''' (Cummann na nGaedheal): 1922-1932.
* '''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1932-1937

An Taoiseach
* '''Éamon de Valera''' (Fianna Fáil): 1937-1948, 1951-1954, 1957-1959.
* '''John A.Costello''' (Fine Gael): 1948-1951, 1954-1957.
* '''Seán Lemass''' (Fianna Fáil): 1959-1966.
* '''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1966-1973.
* '''Liam Cosgrave''' (Fine Gael): 1973-1977.
* '''Jack Lynch''' (Fianna Fáil): 1977-1979.
* '''Charles Haughey''' (Fianna Fáil): 1979-1981, March 1982 - December 82 and March 1987 - February 1992.
* '''Garret FitzGerald''' (Fine Gael): 30 June 1981- 9 March 1982 and 14 December 1982 - 10 March 1987.
* '''Albert Reynolds''' (Fianna Fáil): February 1992-1994.
* '''John Bruton''' (Fine Gael): 1994-1997.
* '''Bertie Ahern''' (Fianna Fáil): 1997-Present. <ref> [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=349&docID=-1] </ref>

====Premiers of Northern Ireland====
Prime Minster of Northern Ireland (1921-1972)
*''Government of Ireland Act''
* '''Sir James Craig''' (UUP): 1921-1940
* '''John Miller Andrews''' (UUP): 1940-1943
* '''Sir Basil Brooke''' (UUP): 1943-1963
* '''Terence O'Neill''' (UUP): 1963-1969
* '''Brian Faulkner''' (UUP): 1969-1972
*''Post abolished in 1972.''

Chief Executive of Northern Ireland (1973–1974)
*''Sunningdale Agreement''
* '''Brian Faulkner''' (UUP) 1973–1974
*''Post abolished in 1972.''

First Minister of Northern Ireland (1998-present)
*''Belfast Agreement''
* '''David Trimble''' (UUP) 1998-July 2001, November 2001-October 2002
* '''Sir Reg Empey''' (UUP) (Acting): July 2001-October 2001
* ''Executive abolished''
*''St Andrews Agreement''
* '''Rev Dr Ian Paisley''' (DUP) 2007-present
<ref>[http://www.worldstatesmen.org/United_Kingdom.html#Northern]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3180.htm]}}

[[Category:Ireland| ]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Islands]]

Mary McAleese

2007-11-24T18:17:59Z

Setanta:

'''Mary McAleese''' is the current President of the [[Republic of Ireland]]. She was born in [[Belfast]]. McAleese is a qualified [[lawyer]] and worked in the state broadcast company [[RTE]] in the 1980s. She was nominated to run for the presidency by [[Fianna Fail]] in 1997. During the campaign she was criticized heavily by [[Eoghan Harris]] because of her Northern Irish nationalist background. Harris said she would prove to be a "tribal time bomb".

She won the election and promised to "build bridges" with Northern Irish Unionists. Her efforts have been credited with helping to achieve peace in [[Northern Ireland]].{{fact}}

As President, she has attracted some controversy with a speech she made comparing Protestants in Northern Ireland with [[Nazi]]s, for which she later apologized.

{{DEFAULTSORT:McAleese, Mary}}

[[Category:Irish People]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]

Brian Boru

2007-11-24T18:14:15Z

Setanta:

'''Brian Boru''' (941 - April 23rd, 1014) was a high king of [[Ireland]]. A clan prince, he first subjugated Munster and then extended his power over all of southern Ireland. By 1002 AD he had subjugated most of the kingdoms of Ireland.

Ruling from 1002 to 1014, he came into conflict with the Norse inhabitants who formed a coalition against him. Brian defeated them at the [[Battle of Clontarf]], but he was murdered in his tent shortly thereafter.{{fact}} Brian's victory had broke the Norse power in Ireland forever, but his untimely death plunged Ireland into anarchy.

== Sources ==

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Brian+Boru

{{DEFAULTSORT:Boru, Brian}}

[[Category:Monarchs]]
[[Category:Irish People]]

Belfast

2007-11-24T18:09:15Z

Setanta: named because of the much-diminished River Farset - not the Lagan

Belfast is the capital of [[Northern Ireland]]. Its name means, "the sandy ford at the mouth of the river", reflecting its position on the estuary of the River Farset. Belfast is the largest city in Northern Ireland, and the second largest city on the island of [[Ireland]].

Belfast was founded in the early seventeenth century when King [[James I]] of [[England]] granted land in the vicinity and the right to create a borough to Sir Arthur Chichester in 1611. As the small port developed its population grew from 2,500 in 1700 to 20,000 in 1800. The 19th century saw rapid industrialisation of the city. Industries included shipbuilding (most famously after 1862 by the yard of Harland & Wolff, builders of the RMS [[Titanic]]), linen weaving (which had begun in the previous century on a household basis but was organised in large factories and mills in the nineteenth century), engineering and distilling of [[whiskey]] and [[gin]]. Belfast was [[Ireland]]'s main industrial centre in part because it could import coal cheaply from the coalfields of the west of [[Scotland]]. By 1901 the population had risen to 349,000.

In the twentieth century Belfast suffered from a decline in its staple industries. It was also badly affected by two major bouts of civil disturbance. The first of these occurred in the early 1920s, as the Irish War of Independence was taking place. Belfast was heavily bombed during the [[Second World War]] and, as a result, lost more than half its housing stock, making more than one hundred thousand people homeless. Despite this, industry in Belfast thrived as a result of the war and this continued to be the case until August of 1968, with the outbreak of street disturbances and demonstrations known as 'the Troubles'. Since 1997 Belfast has thrived as a 'city break' destination as part of a so-called 'peace dividend', and there has been much development along the Lagan waterfront.

Belfast is served by two airports: Aldergrove, twenty miles west on the shore of [[Lough Neagh]], and Belfast City, in the eastern suburbs of the city. It is linked by rail to [[Dublin]] and [[Derry]]/[[Londonderry]], and ferry services connect Belfast to [[Stranraer]] and [[Cairnryan]] in south-west Scotland and to [[Liverpool]] in north-west England.

== External Link ==
http://www.localhistories.org/belfast.html

[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities]]

Belfast

2007-11-24T18:07:06Z

Setanta:

Belfast is the capital of [[Northern Ireland]]. Its name means, "the sandy ford at the mouth of the river", reflecting its position on the estuary of the River Lagan. Belfast is the largest city in Northern Ireland, and the second largest city on the island of [[Ireland]].

Belfast was founded in the early seventeenth century when King [[James I]] of [[England]] granted land in the vicinity and the right to create a borough to Sir Arthur Chichester in 1611. As the small port developed its population grew from 2,500 in 1700 to 20,000 in 1800. The 19th century saw rapid industrialisation of the city. Industries included shipbuilding (most famously after 1862 by the yard of Harland & Wolff, builders of the RMS [[Titanic]]), linen weaving (which had begun in the previous century on a household basis but was organised in large factories and mills in the nineteenth century), engineering and distilling of [[whiskey]] and [[gin]]. Belfast was [[Ireland]]'s main industrial centre in part because it could import coal cheaply from the coalfields of the west of [[Scotland]]. By 1901 the population had risen to 349,000.

In the twentieth century Belfast suffered from a decline in its staple industries. It was also badly affected by two major bouts of civil disturbance. The first of these occurred in the early 1920s, as the Irish War of Independence was taking place. Belfast was heavily bombed during the [[Second World War]] and, as a result, lost more than half its housing stock, making more than one hundred thousand people homeless. Despite this, industry in Belfast thrived as a result of the war and this continued to be the case until August of 1968, with the outbreak of street disturbances and demonstrations known as 'the Troubles'. Since 1997 Belfast has thrived as a 'city break' destination as part of a so-called 'peace dividend', and there has been much development along the Lagan waterfront.

Belfast is served by two airports: Aldergrove, twenty miles west on the shore of [[Lough Neagh]], and Belfast City, in the eastern suburbs of the city. It is linked by rail to [[Dublin]] and [[Derry]]/[[Londonderry]], and ferry services connect Belfast to [[Stranraer]] and [[Cairnryan]] in south-west Scotland and to [[Liverpool]] in north-west England.

== External Link ==
http://www.localhistories.org/belfast.html

[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities]]

Lord Kelvin

2007-11-24T17:58:45Z

Setanta: "Lord Kelvin" isn't a "real name" - it's a title, therefore no need to suggest he had a "real name"

{{stub}}
'''Lord Kelvin''' (1824-1907), who was Irish was born in [[Belfast]] as William Thomson, originally intended to become a [[minister]] of the [[Presbyterian Church]] but decided to become a [[mathematics|mathematician]] and [[physics|physicist]] instead. He helped with the first successful transatlantic communications cable, and the [[absolute temperature scale|absolute scale]] for temperature (where zero is no heat whatsoever) ([[Kelvin]]) is named after him.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kelvin, Lord}}

[[Category:Irish People]]

Lord Kelvin

2007-11-24T17:56:41Z

Setanta: not Scottish - he was Irish, born in Belfast to a farmer from the same city.

{{stub}}
'''Lord Kelvin''' (1824-1907), who was Irish with the real name of William Thomson, originally intended to become a [[minister]] of the [[Presbyterian Church]] but decided to become a [[mathematics|mathematician]] and [[physics|physicist]] instead. He helped with the first successful transatlantic communications cable, and the [[absolute temperature scale|absolute scale]] for temperature (where zero is no heat whatsoever) ([[Kelvin]]) is named after him.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kelvin, Lord}}

[[Category:Irish People]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-24T17:12:29Z

Setanta: Belfast / Good Friday Agreement

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)