Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal

2008-11-02T19:23:19Z

Thefitz3: /* At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

== At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased ==

I was hoping to add the following to the page :

______________________________________________________________________________

No fewer that 75% of Americans have a liberal bias. A recent study, published on October 31st, 2008 by WorldPopularOpinion.org shows that no fewer than 75% of Americans have been brainwashed to follow the attitudes and opinions of liberal bias. While registered Democrats demonstrate exceedingly liberal bias, even supporters of the Republican candidate have been brainwashed into following fundamental liberal doctrines such Universal Health Care, taxpayer and government controlled public education, believing that "US government should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic needs" for education (83%), healthcare (77%), and food (74%)."[1] By reasonable and rational inference, these same individuals apparently also believe in redistribution of wealth, a fundamental liberal doctrine when one considers that these programs can only be supported by taxation of the upper income earners.[2] It seems that the liberal media has successfully brainwashed the average American into opinions and attitudes that are not supported by normal conservatives values. The statistical mean of American attitudes is no longer normal.[3]

[1] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/553.php?lb=brusc&pnt=553&nid=&id=

[2] It makes sense that if poor people can't pay for there own food or health care then they don't have the money to pay taxes that would provide the government assistance.

[3] This will require some basic revamping of statistical terminology. This should not be an issue, perhaps the "normal distribution" curve should be renamed. Statistical theory has an enormous liberal bias in terminology, obviously the result of it's use in academia and the influence by academic elitists. I believe the problem rests in the use of the term "average" as a synonym for "mean" which tends to imply "normal". There also seems to be some misperception regarding "leaning to the right" and "leaning to the left" which implies that they are to the right and left of the mean. In fact, "normal" is at least one standard deviation to the right of the mean and liberally biased includes 80% of the normal distribution curve (to the left side). This is roughly in line with the PIPA study sited above which shows at least 75% of Americans holding liberal biased attitudes.

Talk:Liberal

2008-11-02T19:22:52Z

Thefitz3: /* At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

== At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased ==

I was hoping to add the following to the page :

______________________________________________________________________________

No fewer that 75% of Americans have a liberal bias. A recent study, published on October 31st, 2008 by WorldPopularOpinion.org shows that no fewer than 75% of Americans have been brainwashed to follow the attitudes and opinions of liberal bias. While registered Democrats demonstrate exceedingly liberal bias, even supporters of the Republican candidate have been brainwashed into following fundamental liberal doctrines such Universal Health Care, taxpayer and government controlled public education, believing that "US government should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic needs" for education (83%), healthcare (77%), and food (74%)."[1] By reasonable and rational inference, these same individuals apparently also believe in redistribution of wealth, a fundamental liberal doctrine when one considers that these programs can only be supported by taxation of the upper income earners.[2] It seems that the liberal media has successfully brainwashed the average American into opinions and attitudes that are not supported by normal conservatives values. The statistical mean of American attitudes is no longer normal.[3]

[1] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/553.php?lb=brusc&pnt=553&nid=&id=

[2] It makes sense that if poor people can't pay for there own food or health care then they don't have the money to pay taxes that would provide the government assistance.

[3] This will require some basic revamping of statistical terminology. This is should not be an issue, perhaps the "normal distribution" curve should be renamed. Statistical theory has an enormous liberal bias in terminology, obviously the result of it's use in academia and the influence by academic elitists. I believe the problem rests in the use of the term "average" as a synonym for "mean" which tends to imply "normal". There also seems to be some misperception regarding "leaning to the right" and "leaning to the left" which implies that they are to the right and left of the mean. In fact, "normal" is at least one standard deviation to the right of the mean and liberally biased includes 80% of the normal distribution curve (to the left side). This is roughly in line with the PIPA study sited above which shows at least 75% of Americans holding liberal biased attitudes.

Talk:Liberal

2008-11-02T18:46:09Z

Thefitz3: /* At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

== At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased ==

No fewer that 75% of Americans have a liberal bias. A recent study, published on October 31st, 2008 by WorldPopularOpinion.org shows that no fewer than 75% of Americans have been brainwashed to follow the attitudes and opinions of liberal bias. While registered Democrats demonstrate exceedingly liberal bias, even supporters of the Republican candidate have been brainwashed into following fundamental liberal doctrines such Universal Health Care, taxpayer and government controlled public education, believing that "US government should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic needs" for education (83%), healthcare (77%), and food (74%)."[1] By reasonable and rational inference, these same individuals apparently also believe in redistribution of wealth, a fundamental liberal doctrine when one considers that these programs can only be supported by taxation of the upper income earners.

[1] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/553.php?lb=brusc&pnt=553&nid=&id=

Talk:Liberal

2008-11-02T18:43:10Z

Thefitz3: /* At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased */ new section

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

== At least 75% of Americans are Liberaly Biased ==

No fewer that 75% of Americans have a liberal bias. A recent study, published on October 31st, 2008 by WorldPopularOpinion.org shows that no fewer than 75% of Americans have been brainwashed to follow the attitudes and opinions of liberal bias. While registered Democrats demonstrate exceedingly liberal bias, even supporters of the Republican candidate have been brainwashed into following fundamental liberal doctrines such Universal Health Care, taxpayer and government controlled public education, believing that "US government should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic needs" for education (83%), healthcare (77%), and food (74%)."[1] By reasonable and rational inference, these same individuals apparently also believe in redistribution of wealth, a fundamental liberal doctrine when one considers that these programs can only be supported by taxation of the upper income earners.

[1] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/553.php?lb=brusc&pnt=553&nid=&id=

Conservapedia talk:About

2008-11-02T15:19:49Z

Thefitz3: /* A page for PIPA, the Program on International Political Attitudes */ new section

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

:I can understand the frustrations of Mrreaper; he just got more criticism for responding profoundly to sin than abortionists get for dismembering a healthy preborn child, or NEA public school teachers get for raping the minds of children, or public ALA librarians get for providing a special teen section including erotica, or even pedophiles get for damaging the physical and psychological lives and health of children and teens. Such are the tenets of the NEA and ALA. (Thank heavens not all doctors, teachers, and librarians believe that way! - on Wikipedia it might be only the pseudo-doctors, teachers, and librarians who do not believe that way!!) We are constantly bombarded with the opinion that homosexuality is "normal" and not a matter of choice; and because even homosexuals themselves tend to feel guilty, it seems urgent to some that everyone agree that it is normal. It is very frustrating for a person to deal with feelings of guilt, and even a word or look can cause those concerns to well up. I know it is difficult to get past the anger because there is good reason to be angry; but only our Heavenly Father can handle it; and giving it over to Him, and forgiving "RT Kendall-style" is at the heart of the Gospel. It may help to realize that so many people today involved in every form of perversion have been sexually abused, seduced, and/or lied to since infancy; and too many have been tenderly "protected" from the Gospel of the Bible. [[User: MourningWarbler|MourningWarbler]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

It is '''very''' misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- [[User:RWest|RWest]] 9:38, 27 July 2007

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people {{unsigned|Eljawa}}

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

==FBI investigation==
Could we please have an update on this? People are curious as to the status of the investigation. Are you allowed to talk about it at this time?--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 12:51, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::And which people are curious about it at this time? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:Investigations are not launched on a newspaper front page. They are, by their nature, clandestine, unless a point is reached when an indictment will be served. I hope this was edifying. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::No harm in asking a simple question. In response to Karajou, these people here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253308&oldid=253305],and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=253329&oldid=253320], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=255042&oldid=255039], and here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3AAbout&diff=255057&oldid=255056]would like to know. BTW, Learn together, how do you know there will be an indictment? The FBI may well determine this is not worth their time or trouble. Andy made it public that he reported username stevecarson to the FBI, so what is the harm in asking? --[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::You are concerned about trolls (or a troll) asking questions? Interesting. Hopefully you will take this opportunity to quickly learn FBI protocol. If they had started an investigation, they would hardly copy Andy with what they are doing. They will choose to act based upon their timetables and workload. Andy has informed them of a law being broken. That is the proper procedure to follow. In the event that law is broken again, they would be more likely to expedite the case. Andy has already set that foundation. We won't know, nor do we necessarily care, what is being done at this moment. We'll leave that to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

As has been previously established, the clandestine nature of investigation means we simply don't know. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::DanH, that is true, assuming that the FBI is conducting an investigation. However, why did Conservapedia ban the editors who asked the questions about the investigation? I understand the one who titled his "embarrasing question" as he was a troll, but the others I think, were not.--[[User:Philaretes|Philaretes]] 15:19, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Does anyone know how long "internet harrassment" investigations usually take?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::::OMG Conservative's asking about the FBI *BAN HIM* sorry :)

== Date ==

Could someone dewiki the date? This is the last holdout in [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/2006 2006] [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Ymm.. eh, Mr. Y! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

While looking at the Global Warming article and its controversial nature (frozen), I got an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because there could be DOZENS of changes that might be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== NAME CHANGE ? ==

I love what you are doing, but with your passionate commitment to truth (unlike Wikipedia and the left-wing blogosphere) the name "conservapedia" tends to paint you as too narrow. You deserve to be widely used and cited, by all who want to learn useful and truthful information.

== You're missing a trick ==

Hello. I've created a new user really just to comment on this page. I'm a Wikipedia editor (different username) who's getting more and more fed up with their anti-christian bias, especially regarding the use of BCE/CE. However, I'm also not happy with Wikipedia's pro-American (yes, that's right) bias. This manifests itself in the way many articles are written and edited by contributors who don't seem to realise there's a whole world out there. Many topics are covered purely from the American point-of-view. Today I found out about Conservapedia (it was used as an example of "where to go" by an admin who was admonishing a user for making a perfectly valid BCE --> BC change) but was disappointed to note the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia, which states that it attempts to counteract the perceived anti-American bias of Wikipedia.

Perhaps you should make Conservapedia more global; get rid of the logo, for example, and if you do put an American slant on things, then maybe you shouldn't. I will look more at Conservapedia (I found out about it only 15 minutes ago!) to see if this really is the case. I hope it isn't, because there's a global opportunity here to fight against the political correctness of Wikipedia. Good luck with the project. [[User:SilasStoat|SilasStoat]] 16:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: There was an intention months ago to replace the logo, and Conservapedia has eased back on its pro-American stance a bit (which, being an Aussie, I'm glad of). However, I think that you are comparing two slightly different matters.
:# Wikipedia has a pro-American bias in that a large proportion of its editors are American, and therefore tend to write from an American perspective, being ignorant of the rest of the world. So there might be a lot written on George Washington, but relatively little on Winston Churchill (these are just hypothetical examples).
:# However, Wikipedia tends to have an anti-American bias in the sense of denigrating America and its place in the world. Leftists/liberals in western society tend to run their own countries down (I see it here in Oz too), particularly if a conservative government is in power, and with a high proportion of such people in Wikipedia, they tend to denigrate western ideals, which tends to mean denigrating America, being in some ways the epitome of those ideals.
: And it's number 2 that Conservapedia is opposed to, I believe, although in the process, it does strongly have problem number 1, unfortunately.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Grammar ==

Could someone with greater editing powers edit the line "do you know what pretzels have their shape". [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Got it. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==David Barton is one of my heroes!!!!==

Wikipedia is most certainly biased against freedom of thought - no possible explanation for our existence is allowed except evolution. Wikapedians I dealt with were bullies. Could I post my little ditty about David Barton here? Wikipedians would not allow me to make even changes to create an actual article, but preferred the random ramblings of those who hate David Barton; they banned me and told me to "cool off" when I kept reposting my additions; I left in all but the most redundant "pseudo-historian" drivel. Looking through the history, others had also tried to make an unbiased article, but they also had been expelled! [[User: MourningWarbler|MourningWarbler]]
:Go ahead and write the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== A page for PIPA, the Program on International Political Attitudes ==

I was hoping to find some indepth information on PIPA but can't find anything on Conservapedia. I really want to get some unbiased info rather than the slanted info I keep finding on Wiki.. Can someone add such a page?