Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-11-12T05:18:28Z

Vcelloho: /* Evidence? */ new section

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]] 



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.)
-Damien Rivers
: The Bible doesn't merely imply it. It says that plants were to be food for the animals and humans. As for evidence, it's probably more of a lack of conclusive evidence for the evolutionary view. Some creatures classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth don't eat meat! The fruit bat is one example. Further, many carnivores can survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. Also, there are examples of closely-related species in which one is herbivorous and the other is carnivorous. We also have examples of herbivores (e.g. sheep) eating meat on occasion. So there is considerable evidence that originally-herbivorous creatures becoming carnivorous is quite plausible, and so really nothing in science to refute the biblical claim of the animals ''originally'' being herbivorous.
: As far as plants and bacteria being alive is concerned, see [[classification system]] and realise that it depends on your definition. The modern scientific definition is that they are alive, but the biblical definition is that they are not. The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::...which is part of why I'm skeptical of Biblical inerrantism, Philip. I find it difficult to imagine anyone using that as their definition, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it's the definition God intended us to employ. There are, after all, a great many creatures other than plants and bacteria which do ''not'' breathe air through their nostrils.

::Biblical exegesis is well and good, but I think too many people place too much faith in the ability of modern man to accurately and faithfully analyze linguistic nuance. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Umm, yeah? What does that have to do with inerrancy? As the article on [[classification system]]s points out, "some systems may be better, or more useful than others, ''especially for a given purpose''" (emphasis altered). The point is, the Bible had a ''different'' purpose than modern science. The Bible's classification system wasn't intended for scientific use. Beyond that, your response amounts to saying, "I can't see how that would be useful, so the Bible must be wrong.", which makes your lack of imagination the benchmark for deciding biblical accuracy! What arrogance! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not at all. My response amounts to "When an assertion is made concerning the original meaning of the Bible, and when this assertion conflicts with observed evidence, it is likely that the assertion is in error." I must confess to not even being sure of which passage you're referring to, as the only passage I can think of offhand that mentions the breath of life in conjunction with the nostrils is Genesis 7:22--and no translation of Genesis 7:22 I have ever read makes "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." a benchmark for all that is living. In fact, it immediately links that qualifier to "...of all that was in the dry land." (There's also Genesis 2:7, but that's referring exclusively to Adam, so I can't imagine it's the basis of your claim.) If there is another line I'm overlooking elsewhere, please feel free to point it out; while I study the Bible, I do not claim to have it committed perfectly to memory, and it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking the line on which you base your argument.

::::Moreover, I can observe that the definition you offered ("The Bible defines living things as those that breath air through their nostrils.") seems rather strongly at odds with Genesis 1:20, which establishes that the creatures brought forth from the water had life. You could add the qualifier that this only applies to creatures on dry land, as per Genesis 7:22, but as I already pointed out, Genesis 7:22 does not establish that only those creatures that had the breath of life in their nostrils were alive; merely that the ones who did and were on dry land all died. It would be possible to argue that "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is in the poetic mode, and meant to refer to a broader range of respiration than strictly the nostrils, but that would also undermine the definition offered.

:::: Is my skepticism when someone says "The Bible says..." or "The Biblical definition is..." arrogance? Perhaps. I think it would be far more arrogant if I were to assume that current scholarship has so successfully captured the nuance and idiom of the autographic texts that no significant errors of understanding remain.

:::: I have faith in God. I know, however, how difficult it is to perfectly render an author's original intent even when you share the author's language, culture, and frame of reference. I would greet ''any'' claim by any scholar that they perfectly comprehended the idiom and tropes of a writer two thousand years dead with healthy skepticism. I know that some advance the argument that it is God's Word, and therefore, He will ensure understanding--but, again, that claim conflicts with what has been observed throughout history. Men...even saintly men...are capable of misunderstanding God's Word, and so coming to wrong conclusions about the world around them. God has not prevented this from happening, so it would be arrogant indeed to presume that He will do so now.

:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

''NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment#Dinosaur discussion continuation|my talk page]]''.

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Evidence? ==

Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-12T05:09:56Z

Vcelloho: /* Debate On Obama's Religion */

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

== Disgusted Conservative ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

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

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

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

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

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

==57 Islamic states==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya ==

The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise.
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced.
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)
:::Simple solution to this whole thing. Islam does not forbid dancing. Amazing no? Islam forbids certain kinds of dancing. Such as dancing involving the men and women who are not married, and dancing with the intention to be provocative. Of course there are always members of a group who are more conservative with religious laws (no dancing at all) or more liberal with laws (any dancing is ok) but as written, Dancing is allowed as long as it is well mannered, does not stimulate desires, and does not mix men and women who are not married.
That being said, there are also christian groups that forbid dancing as well. For much the same reasons. So just because Obama doesn't dance enough for your satisfaction does not mean anything regarding religion.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:50, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==Connections with Irish Terrorists==

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Inciting hatred ==

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference 29 ==

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim Votes==
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might ''think'' that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.

:::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--[[User:MichaelMo|MichaelMo]] 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I ''feel'' that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--[[User:AshleyB|AshleyB]] 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::::The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::: This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any '''causation'''? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have ''known'' that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.

No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.

:In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to ''know'' (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy.

:Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

[[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|Black Americans vote for the Democrat presidential candidate over 90% of the time]], even when that candidate is not Black. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Often correlation is indicative of causation. Those Democrat cantidates were probably secretly black. --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 18:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.
::The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I have to confess to being very confused by everything that's being said here. None of it seems to quite line up. Wouldn't the Jewish community be LESS likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, particularly one with the alleged terrorist links? Yet 78% of them voted for him - in greater proportion than they have previously voted for a Democrat? That seems to be completely counter to the allegation? It just all seems very odd, and very confusing to a passing reader. [[User:HarryR|HarryR]] 22:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Confusion==

I'm just a little bit confused about one of the dot points claiming Obama is a Muslim, and was wondering if someone could explain it. It is the one about him leaving his Church without first finding a new one.

Here in Australia, while many people are members of a Church, a majority of us Christians are not. There is often no official enrolment beyond donations or small groups, and most families simply attend the Church closest to them, some even attending a number of Churches. As such it is quite confusing to state that a person is not a Christian simply because they have not "joined" a Church, as this is not a reflection on whether or not they attend, let alone their individual faith. Perhaps this could be clarified for an international audience.

Also the line "Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity" is entirely conterproductive to the argument, as the statements made by Obama that are in opposition to Christianity (regarding homosexuality) are also in opposition to Islam. If anything this is proof that Obama is not a Muslim and is in fact an atheist, and should be removed asap! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Also Malcolm X did not become a Muslim after he was a National of Islam leader, it was before. The current wording needs to be fixed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Lenin Poster ==

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

== Obama and beer ==

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

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

== Hussein reference ==

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

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

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

== Reference ==

<references/>

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

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-12T05:08:04Z

Vcelloho:

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

== Disgusted Conservative ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

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

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

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

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

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

==57 Islamic states==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Favorite black leader ==

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Main Picture ==

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]

: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Taqiyya ==

The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise.
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Taqiyya & takeyya ==

Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== wife opinions ==

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]

:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

==Errors and dubious claims==

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]

: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]

: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]

: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]

: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008

== Obamas Grandmother==
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

== How low can you go? ==

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Berg Obama lawsuit==
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

==Request addition==
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== First Muslim President ==

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced.
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]

:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== Barack raises the bar ==

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== A hypothetical article ==

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

== Birth Certificate Controversy ==

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Is going to be the next president==
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==
Article should be updated accordingly
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== What happening with the muslim section? ==

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Copyediting needed ==

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim? ==

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== A Muslim President-elect! ==

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== "70's terrorist" ==

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== MInd Control? Really now? ==

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== Absence of Dancing ==

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::um, lol?
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]

::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)
:::Simple solution to this whole thing. Islam does not forbid dancing. Amazing no? Islam forbids certain kinds of dancing. Such as dancing involving the men and women who are not married, and dancing with the intention to be provocative. Of course there are always members of a group who are more conservative with religious laws (no dancing at all) or more liberal with laws (any dancing is ok) but as written, Dancing is allowed as long as it is well mannered, does not stimulate desires, and does not mix men and women who are not married.
That being said, there are also christian groups that forbid dancing as well. For much the same reasons. So just because Obama doesn't dance enough for your satisfaction does not mean anything regarding religion.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:50, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Anti Americanism ==

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== "Muslim Faith" comment ==

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Socialistic==
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==Wait==

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

==Connections with Irish Terrorists==

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

== Inciting hatred ==

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference 29 ==

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Muslim Votes==
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might ''think'' that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.

:::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--[[User:MichaelMo|MichaelMo]] 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I ''feel'' that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--[[User:AshleyB|AshleyB]] 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::::The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:::: This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any '''causation'''? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have ''known'' that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.

No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.

:In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to ''know'' (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy.

:Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

[[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|Black Americans vote for the Democrat presidential candidate over 90% of the time]], even when that candidate is not Black. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Often correlation is indicative of causation. Those Democrat cantidates were probably secretly black. --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 18:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.
::The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I have to confess to being very confused by everything that's being said here. None of it seems to quite line up. Wouldn't the Jewish community be LESS likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, particularly one with the alleged terrorist links? Yet 78% of them voted for him - in greater proportion than they have previously voted for a Democrat? That seems to be completely counter to the allegation? It just all seems very odd, and very confusing to a passing reader. [[User:HarryR|HarryR]] 22:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

==Confusion==

I'm just a little bit confused about one of the dot points claiming Obama is a Muslim, and was wondering if someone could explain it. It is the one about him leaving his Church without first finding a new one.

Here in Australia, while many people are members of a Church, a majority of us Christians are not. There is often no official enrolment beyond donations or small groups, and most families simply attend the Church closest to them, some even attending a number of Churches. As such it is quite confusing to state that a person is not a Christian simply because they have not "joined" a Church, as this is not a reflection on whether or not they attend, let alone their individual faith. Perhaps this could be clarified for an international audience.

Also the line "Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity" is entirely conterproductive to the argument, as the statements made by Obama that are in opposition to Christianity (regarding homosexuality) are also in opposition to Islam. If anything this is proof that Obama is not a Muslim and is in fact an atheist, and should be removed asap! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Also Malcolm X did not become a Muslim after he was a National of Islam leader, it was before. The current wording needs to be fixed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Lenin Poster ==

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

== Obama and beer ==

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

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

== Hussein reference ==

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

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

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

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-29T03:31:54Z

Vcelloho: /* What's Wrong With Bias? */

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



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

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to answer your questions, however:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==No Entry for liberal==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

== #81 ==

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

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-29T03:19:49Z

Vcelloho: Renaissance: I contest point 64

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



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

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to answer your questions, however:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==No Entry for liberal==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== possible bias ==

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

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

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

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

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

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

== grammatical note ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

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

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

== #81 ==

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

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?

2007-12-29T03:08:49Z

Vcelloho: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The desire to conserve natural resources for human appreciation and use was extended to treating the entire planet as the human "environment". So environmentalism just means taking care of nature in the sense of Genesis 1:28, some say. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:27, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
*The purpose of today's environmentalism is to consolidate power structures into NGO's (Non Governmental Organinisations). These NGO's will be used to influence corporate, legislative, and judicial bodies in the regulatory manipulation of the worlds societies to conform to their sustainable development vision of the world. Sustainable development in this case means the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to the third world. The elimination of privately owned property by individual citizens. Thereby creating a Human-made utopian Garden of Eden... without God, of course. That is what is meant by the term environmentalism. I, myself prefer conservationalism of a conservative nature instead.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

*If you want to go on bible verses try Revelations 7:3 " Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." Environmentalism Isn't just about saving resources.-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:08, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?

2007-12-29T03:08:40Z

Vcelloho: /* NO */