Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Christianity

2009-05-14T20:35:09Z

TommyQ:

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest religion, having 2.1 billion followers. It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] as the Son of [[God]]. Christianity takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref>. Christianity has been described as a religion of love, which makes it perfectly logical that one of its main belief is that non-believers will burn in agony for all of eternity and that brutal wars have been waged in its name.
== Main Christian groups ==

The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who Catholic believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers.

* the [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
* [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.
{{Clear}}

== Christian beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians are not polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). Though to non-Christians and even many Christians, it might seem like an inconsequential dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to all of Christian theology and life. This is especially true in the relationship between God and human beings. The major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc. The picture that the Biblical writers draw with these words is of a lover (God) who is entirely self-sufficient, needing nothing, and a beloved (human beings) in desperate need of salvation but unable to obtain it for himself. But God the lover is willing to suffer, knows He is going to suffer, even endure death to save those who believe in him. This love of God for human beings is an extension of the love the Three Persons in the Trinity have for each other. Each loves the others infinitely. Their love for each other and for their creation is such that the [[Apostle John]] equates God and love, in an almost mathematical way saying, "God is love."

Additionally, the God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John said in his Gospel.
{{Clear}}

===Jesus' Self Consciousness===

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.
[[Image:Carpaccio Christus in Emmaus.jpg|thumb|Christus in Emmaus by [[Vittore Carpaccio]]]]
Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastations of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.

# Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."
# Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".
# It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God—the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away—the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications.

Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins—certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"?

The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; [[NASB]]). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===

The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for.

4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==History of the name "Christian"==
Some early Christian churches called themselves "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in [[Antioch]] in the first century A. D. and its use spread, probably closer to mid-century since it is recorded in the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26)

==See also==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Orthodox Church]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Christian Science]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Talk:Gun control

2009-05-14T20:22:19Z

TommyQ: /* Teaching Needed */ new section

{{Articletalkheader|prefix=Archive_}}

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::: Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are ''personally'' "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely ''opposed'' to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.
::::::::::: I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on ''physical evidence'', not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: <s>RodWeathers</s> Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that <s>Andy did</s> I commented on above.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Teaching Needed ==

Hi guys, I was just wondering why we are so racist, bigoted and discriminatory here. Thanks!

Wikipedia

2009-05-14T20:16:12Z

TommyQ:

[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wikipedia.org Multilingual Wikipedia home page]]]

'''Wikipedia''' is an online [[encyclopedia]] founded by [[entrepreneur]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001. Despite its official "neutrality policy", [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for. (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> As you know, us all being idiots here, you can disregard this article and go find one that knows what it's talking about on Wikipedia or Liberapedia.

==Origins==

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a [[conservative bias]]. [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist Daniel Brandt, a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "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,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]] and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref>

Berlet and Daniel Brandt wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&pid=18679&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retains Berlet, despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]].

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=0&#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&pid=21441&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry21441</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&pid=23072&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=2f1782927c11d7a9e62cf6815238337d&showtopic=7603&view=findpost&p=25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From [[WikiTruth]], the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.

Brandt is now known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&pid=7935&mode=threaded&show=&st=&#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=1422&view=findpost&p=7935</ref>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

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. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5641&view=findpost&p=19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/virgin.htm Article: Chip Berlet, SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.

[[Category:Wikis]]

Judaism

2009-05-14T20:12:38Z

TommyQ: Corrected a few errors.

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC.As we are all conservative, biased bigots here, we all know the Jew are going to Hell, and that serves them right. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]), in which the [[Mosaic Law]] is found, are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

[[Jesus]] was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became [[Christianity]]. Christians consider him to be the [[Messiah]] and even consider him to be the [[Son of God]]. Jews on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is either the messiah nor God's son. Jesus has no religious significance in Judaism at all, though some Jews may admire him as a moral teacher.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the east, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the eve of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants, lineage, came [[King David]] ''“your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever”'' 2 Samuel 7:16, as did [[Jesus Christ]] '' 'The promised Messiah of Israel would come from the “house of David.”' '' Acts 13:34. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''[[Aggadah]]'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]