How much the mid east loves us

[Stone]

we are dealing with all the freedoms we have in our country we do have several religons in our country but it was founded a christian country.We have the freedom to choose our leaders even though the choices we have often really suck.the women here have the right to vote the right to work the right to choose who they marry.This frightens the middle eastren countries the most not so much the people its their leaders.If the people of these countries had the freedom we have the leaders they would loose all the power they have.They use their religon to help keep the people down especially the women they are kept uneducated have no rights no freedom of choice treated like property.I for one find this aweful but its not my problem or the USA's problem one day these countries will address these problems or not it will take a revolution on the peoples part to fix them not an invasion by another country to fix it.

[she_screams]

to be fair, i can't think of one nation that likes the US forgein policy. nothing to do with US citerzens but its the US administration. UK govt were allies but not sure you heard that most of us over here dont even like out own govt. just my opinion.
s_s

[mkemse]

to be fair, i can't think of one nation that likes the US forgein policy. nothing to do with US citerzens but its the US administration. UK govt were allies but not sure you heard that most of us over here dont even like out own govt. just my opinion.
s_s

I agree, but since no countries like our foreign policies, they do not like us, outide of Uk we have no real allies in the world i can think of, except maybe the Aussies, 10 years ago we had more allies then we could handle

[Ozme52]

Y'all think that just because many of our allies don't agree with everything we are (aka Bush is) doing right now that they're no longer our allies?

Then I wouldn't want to rely on you as a friend. You obviously have no intention of supporting a friend if you happen to disagree with him over some issue.

In fact we have many allies who have and would again come to our aid should we need it.

[mkemse]

outside of the UK, i have no heard any nation/country recently publicly express their support for the Us in Iraq ect, yes the may have when the the Iraqi war started but recently I have heard no support form other sountries, they may have armed forces on the ground, but most nations have around 1,500, that hardly compares to our deployment, all you ever hear on the news andsee in clips are US and British troops, I have enever seen or heard of attacks, on Autrailn Troops, Turkeish if there are any, nor about Canandian troops
I guess what I do not undertand on this whole issue is Last November, knowing full well what The Democratic planned to do, a mandate was sent to washingron, giving the Dems control of the House and mimimal control of the senate, yet our President still does not seem to acknowledge what the vast majority of American voted for last November, The American People voted last November for a change in stragidy, yey when those who were elected to carry out these mandated changes, the Prsiednt has the nerve to say "All Americans support the Troops" we do, we can support the troops without ut supporting the War itself what we do not support in most cases is that fact the Bush simply can not accept the fact, that this war canot be won, it is a CIVIL War, a sectarian War, we will never win this
The people of the United States sent him a mandate in Novemember, he needs to respect that mandate

[mkemse]

I also found it intresting that Sen JohnMcCain, went on a shopping trip in downtown Baghdad, said that he say it this secured and safe and that it had changed since his last visit, that the streets were safer to walk down
THEN, he is also shown and later clarified his remarks, the photos clearly showed him with a bulit proof vest on, 15020 armed soldiers with assault rifles, full armored and armed Humvee's arouns him, with 2 attack helicopyers hovering over him, yes if i was shopping withthat type of security i would feel very safe to.
He did say he failed to mention that the had the security and protection he had while shopping, later clairified his remarks about his shopping trip as an "over sight" yes i would say not mentionig a full contingent of armed security around him, a attck helicopters hovering over his head and armoured humvess encircling him, a major oversight, but him, he obviuosly was trying to make remarks about how safe the streets were, this is a prime example of letting us know what he wanted us to know, now that we knowwhat his security was, sure i would have no prblem shopping anywhere with this type of security
And the media took him to task on this and he agreed with the media sayng he should have been HONEST initialy, intreseting reverse of the situation

[she_screams]

outside of the UK, i have no heard any nation/country recently publicly express their support for the Us in Iraq ect,

but the thing is, most UK citezens don't support USadmin invading iraq and we dont support this publically. its no offence to the US people but its true. we dont even like blair because he made a pact with bush even though most of us were against it. ive lost 2 brothers and an uncle who were sent over to basra and my uncles battlion were hit by friendly fire from US soldiers. dont blame iraqi people or usa people but the public support you say, ive not heard any. maybe you dont get to see our news reports or papers. just my opinion.
s_s

[mkemse]

but the thing is, most UK citezens don't support USadmin invading iraq and we dont support this publically. its no offence to the US people but its true. we dont even like blair because he made a pact with bush even though most of us were against it. ive lost 2 brothers and an uncle who were sent over to basra and my uncles battlion were hit by friendly fire from US soldiers. dont blame iraqi people or usa people but the public support you say, ive not heard any. maybe you dont get to see our news reports or papers. just my opinion.
s_s

I agree most UK's do not suport blair or the Iraq war thus 1 less allie to deal with there is virutally no country who i know of now that supports us publicly

[Confessor_Ed]

Who can say, without a doubt, that removing Hussein as the leader of Iraq hasn't averted a far more dire consequence.

I can. The SAS could have brought him down in a flash but no, those who govern us wanted the 'glory'. The 2 B's wanted to look heroic and it was mainly symbolisim that has gone horribly wrong. What kind of legacy have they left behind? Peace makers or tyrants?

Who would you chose to invade? Pick your war.
Kuwait and Iraq's war. Key word. Oil.
Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Keywords. No Oil.
Ed

[Ozme52]

I can. The SAS could have brought him down in a flash but no, those who govern us wanted the 'glory'. The 2 B's wanted to look heroic and it was mainly symbolisim that has gone horribly wrong. What kind of legacy have they left behind? Peace makers or tyrants?

Who would you chose to invade? Pick your war.
Kuwait and Iraq's war. Key word. Oil.
Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Keywords. No Oil.
Ed

You're arguing against my statement because you would have preferred him assassinated.. but you haven't said it would have been better to leave him in power.

So are you agreeing with me or not?

[TomOfSweden]

I can. The SAS could have brought him down in a flash but no, those who govern us wanted the 'glory'. The 2 B's wanted to look heroic and it was mainly symbolisim that has gone horribly wrong. What kind of legacy have they left behind? Peace makers or tyrants?

But who says just picking off Saddam would have changed a damn thing? My guess is that another joker would have stepped up and taken over, as if nothing happened. Qusay would be the best guess. The problem in Iraq wasn't Saddam personally but the Baathist govornement he was leading.

I think that the only way to make any lasting change was invasion. But I'm not saying it couldn't have been handled better.

[TomOfSweden]

we are dealing with all the freedoms we have in our country we do have several religons in our country but it was founded a christian country.We have the freedom to choose our leaders even though the choices we have often really suck.the women here have the right to vote the right to work the right to choose who they marry.This frightens the middle eastren countries the most not so much the people its their leaders.If the people of these countries had the freedom we have the leaders they would loose all the power they have.They use their religon to help keep the people down especially the women they are kept uneducated have no rights no freedom of choice treated like property.I for one find this aweful but its not my problem or the USA's problem one day these countries will address these problems or not it will take a revolution on the peoples part to fix them not an invasion by another country to fix it.

How do you know western freedoms and freedom of religion "frightens the middle eastren countries"? Because Bush told you or what? I've heard it enough in US nationalistic propaganda. I've just never heard it from any Arabs.

Turkey is a middle-eastern muslim country with freedom of religion. They've had freedom of religion for 500 years. That's well before any western country had it or the European enlightenment. So much for western greatness and superior progressivness. Constantinoples/Istanbuls churches and synagogues stood under the Sultans personal protection.

I don't think the problem is Islam in the middle-east, but that fascist govornements, (Saudi-Arbia, Iran, Syria, Libya etc). They are hiding behind Islam to hide the fact that they are classical fascist states. If it wouldn't be Islam, it'd be something else. Off-course a fascist govornement is afraid of political freedoms. They would lose their power. I'm 100% certain that the people not in power in the middle-east aren't against political or personal freedoms. Who would be?

[cariad]

Whooopeeee. Celebrating being in agreement with Tom for once.

Whilst I am quite happy living under the UK regime, I have heard Arab women say that they appreciate the protection their less extreme societies give them, and so not wish for some of our 'freedoms'. I think there is a significant risk of looking inwards and assuming that our hard won freedoms are what everyone else wishes for.

I am sure most people in my country would like to 'free' me from being in a submissive relationship, to give me therapy so that I do not feel the need for it...

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

Whooopeeee. Celebrating being in agreement with Tom for once.

Whilst I am quite happy living under the UK regime, I have heard Arab women say that they appreciate the protection their less extreme societies give them, and so not wish for some of our 'freedoms'. I think there is a significant risk of looking inwards and assuming that our hard won freedoms are what everyone else wishes for.

I am sure most people in my country would like to 'free' me from being in a submissive relationship, to give me therapy so that I do not feel the need for it...

cariad

The importance here is that you are free to chose your own "opression", right? In that sense you are very much free no matter how it may look on the surface.

[Panplayer]

Interesting thread. At the time I thought the war in Iraq was wrong. I believed, as did everyone in the World, that they had WMDs. I suspect we believed that because they used them against Iran and the Kurds. I suspect Sadam Hussein believed he had them as well. But WMDs or not, I saw no reason for war while containment worked.

The war happened, unfortunately. A terrible dictator was deposed, which is good. Unfortunately, the U.S. utterly screwed up the post war situation. Now Iraq is terribly broken and no good options remain. To abandon a country, after destroying it, will cause more suffering and make it Taliban Afghanistan on steroids. But, if we stay, we need a plan to rebuild the country and give the people a chance to have decent lives. Note what doesn't come next-- an idea. I simply don't have one. The U.S can't go but we sure don't want to stay.

[mkemse]

Interesting thread. At the time I thought the war in Iraq was wrong. I believed, as did everyone in the World, that they had WMDs. I suspect we believed that because they used them against Iran and the Kurds. I suspect Sadam Hussein believed he had them as well. But WMDs or not, I saw no reason for war while containment worked.

The war happened, unfortunately. A terrible dictator was deposed, which is good. Unfortunately, the U.S. utterly screwed up the post war situation. Now Iraq is terribly broken and no good options remain. To abandon a country, after destroying it, will cause more suffering and make it Taliban Afghanistan on steroids. But, if we stay, we need a plan to rebuild the country and give the people a chance to have decent lives. Note what doesn't come next-- an idea. I simply don't have one. The U.S can't go but we sure don't want to stay.

We never had a plan to exit, we had a plan to invade and get rid of Saddam, but the "War" plan never included an exit plan you have to have that in ANY conflict, is it possible that Bush decided to invade Iraq, do what we did, but never realized how long we would be there?? He said we would be in and out in 90 days, how ever he never had(or never made public anyway) any exit stradigy. What we have there no whether he will ackwnoeldge t or not is a CIVIL WAR, we as a Nation can not win THEIR CIVIL WAR, all the sects need to get together and negotiate a stradigy, and as JamesBaker said, "You have to negotiate at time with your enemy's" the fatc that Bush will not talk to Iran, Syria ect makes it worse, yes they are evil nations but to resolve this he has to have direct talk with all nations in the area, we aren't looking for "bussies" there when we talk, we are looking to end a ectarian Conflict which has to be negotiated no other way to win
This war has no lasted longer then Korea, more lives lost then Korea, it is time to give Maliki the option, sit down negotiate and setlle this conflict until we put pressure on all involved this war will never end

[OttifantSir]

I will go slightly off-topic here.
I don't believe any occupant of any country is perfectly satisfied with their government. I know we aren't here in Norway. I don't know which party to vote for, simply because none of the parties (and we have a LOT of them) have a party program I wish to endorse. The ONE thing that made me think about voting for Venstre (Left, one of the two oldest parties in Norway), was a handout of toothbrushes in a case stating they wanted everyone to get free dental care, along with free general health care. But my vote wouldn't have mattered based on that. They barely makes the limit for representation in Stortinget (our main governing body) which is at 4% of the votes.

All I know, is that I don't want any of the morons currently in Stortinget or Regjeringen (Kind of like the Cabinet in US, I believe) to be governing the country I live in. Because that's what they are. Our last election started with something called Soria-Moriaerklæringen (Declaration of Soria-Moria), a pact and common declaration of policy between a few parties to be sure they would get seats in Regjeringen. One of the main issues was that foreign workers in Norway, as long as they weren't illegal immigrants, would have the same rights as Norwegian employess, meaning, along with other things, they would have a contract of employment. They chose to hold this meeting at a hotel where there were foreign workers that didn't have such contracts. It was quite common knowledge, but they didn't care about it. They never excused themselves for not checking up on this. They just never mentioned it. That showed me that what they wanted to change, stated in their policy, wouldn't happen.

Politicians want only one thing: Power and publicity. They want power for the sake of power, not for the good of the people. Someone once said "Even bad press is good press"
And I believe an old Greek wiseman was truly insightful and true when he said "No man (person) who wants to be a politician should ever be allowed to sit in the Senate (hold office)"

Back to our scheduled program: Personally I believe it was correct to invade Iraq. Even if the reasons stated for doing so was false. I believe it was correct to overthrow the government in that country. The population of that country didn't have enough power themselves to change their government. But what has happened afterwards is a seriously botched exercise of power.

I can't come up with a better idea for how it should've been done either, but it has been proven that the recent idea doesn't work.

As for the sectarian governments of this region, I truly believe that they are just at a normal stage in their religion. Look at most of the other religions of the world. At first, there is unity and conformity to the rules/laws/ideas/etc of that religion. After some time, someone challenge that idea, and they break off and form another sub-division of religion. This is not liked by the old group, and the new group despise the "archaic" thought-patterns of the old. The old, being a larger group has more power, and opress the new group. Sometimes for a very long time. This has happened time and time again. The best example I can give (because that's the history I have read the most on) is the Inquisition. The Roman-Catholic Church didn't want any dissidents, so if you spoke up about injustice towards people under the cover of religion, they were "corrected". This went on for a long time.

I believe the Islamic world is at that stage in their religious development. But where the Inquisition lasted many centuries, I believe the Islamic development will take less time due to globalisation. New ideas and techniques travel the world faster than ever before. Just look at this forum. Just 15 years ago, this forum wouldn't have been all that it is today. We might have been talking to eachother via computer, but all the pictures herein, all the stories, all the stored communication wasn't a possibility.

I say we should give help, advise, negotiate with these countries as is fit. We should state to them that we don't like the way they are running their countries. We can impose on them trade embargos. Money makes the world go round. If the governing body sees that their comfort starts being in the danger zone, they soon will change. Or the people, who feel the need first, will start a revolution.

I believe that's the way to go. The French Revolution lasted ten years. But we are getting used to information being so convenient, and we are so used to seeing wars being fought and decided within two hours (roughly a standard Hollywood movie) that we get impatient. We want to meddle in the ongoing conflict to make sure it is solved before dinner.

A human life lost in vain is sad, but how come one life has become so precious? We got comforts. We don't see dead people anymore. Earlier, people died at home from disease, injuries or old age. They died in wars and conflicts because they believed strongly in a cause. We made sure to stuff them away.

I have now gone way off-topic. But to me, these things are linked. I can't distinguish one of these without seeing all the others.

I like the US personally. I think it seems like a great country. Maybe not much better or worse than my own, but I like it, and the population. I don't like the President and his Cabinet, and probably wouldn't like most of the politicians as politicians, but that's because they're politicians. I might've liked them personally.

So, does the world hate USA? In my opinion, no. They hate the people at the top. The ones responsible. The ones that do whatever they can to stay at the top as long as possible.

[Stone]

welli agree we should have invaded iraq but not for the war on terror and wmd's it was something that needed to be finished.as far as the war on terror we should have invaded saudi arabia after all 15 of the terrorists in the planes were saudi's.I am going to sound like an extremest about islam but i have studied it and understand it better than most non-muslims.A member of islam can lie to his wife anyone he is doing buisness with and especially the enemy it is not a sin.I will say its not so much the common everyday muslim you have to worry about like with all religons its the extremests the trouble is its the extremests that are incharge of these middle eastren countries.

[nk_lion]

Yeeaa....1 down, 5 to go, breaking from my voluntary insanity to come here.

Yes they hate or religous freedom the most it is every muslims job to covert us make us their slaves or simply just kill us.Most people do not understand Islam,or want to in Islam there are 3 houses the house of Islam saved for the muslims of course,The house of treaty,and the house of war.Here in the USA we are christians so we do not fall into the house of Islam nor do we have a treaty with them so there is only one thing left the house of war.This thread will probably start getting flamed and heated so keep in mind we are having a discussion not a who's right or wrong.

Wrong. There is no such thing as three houses in Islam, (at least in Sunnism and Shiasm). It is a duty for Muslims to inform others of Islam, but not to force it down someone's throat, and definitely not to kill non-Muslims if they disagree. Islam recognizes Christians and Jews as people of the book (Religions extremely close in idealogy and history). Muslims, albeit restrictively, are allowed to marry Christians and Jews. For years after Islam came to being, there were people from different religions living under the same empire. Only after Septerber 11, 2001, did the world really pay attention to the Middle East apart from oil.

Now I'm not saying everything is fine over there, or even close to it, but people from all religions live there, including Jews. Some countries over there even have a national holiday on Christmas. People over there don't care about other religions, they care about the fact that in their eyes, Arabs are being mistreated in Arabian lands. That the West pushes forward to 'invade' them for their oil, and then leave them dry.

A member of islam can lie to his wife anyone he is doing buisness with and especially the enemy it is not a sin.I will say its not so much the common everyday muslim you have to worry about like with all religons its the extremests the trouble is its the extremests that are incharge of these middle eastren countries.

Wrong again, lying for a Muslim is a sin, period. There are no if, ands or buts. It is as bad to lie, as it is to commit adultry. Islam follows the 10 commandments including the famous - "Thou shall not lie".


Now, I think that even if Iraq did have WMDs, USUK shouldn't have gone in that quickly. Saddam was a tyrant who knew too well how to rule his country with an iron grip. If US looked to the north and saw the Turk/Kurdish strife, or the East, and realised that another member of the 'Axis of Evil' with the largest Shia population bordered Iraq, or realised that the centeral Iraq consisted with a ruling minority that would lose power soon to those they have been oppressing for years, it may have paused for a moment to think of a possibility of a civil war. Weeks after entering Iraq, the so-called Mission was Accomplished. But look, years and thousands of Iraqis/Americans/British lives later, you have a country that is more dangerous then ever, a hotbed for terrorists, and no end in sight for the disastor Jon Stewart so rightly calls Messopotamia.

It is right for stronger/richer countries to help out poorer ones, especially ones in turmoil. But how an administration can plan a war and a country rebuilding efforts, right after leading another war in Afganistan, and dealing with the recent recession, and the normal stuff within America all in 18 months is beyond me.

[TomOfSweden]

Ottifant, you're chin deep in subjects discussed heavily in philosophy last century. I suggest reading up on Deleuze.

There's plenty of compelling evidence that political and personal freedoms -> more creativity -> more efficient ways of making money -> opulence. So anywhere rich is likely to be liberal.

The Islamic world under Muhammed up until the invasion and inclusion into the Ottoman empire, was for the time the most liberal and wealthiest place on earth. After the European enlightenment Europe got rich. We wheren't always the rich dudes in the world. North Europeans have historically been rather poor and backward as a region. We shouldn't get too cocky up here. According to Deleuze the Islamic world is now where Europe was in the 13'th century.

They haven't even had their Thomas Aquinas yet...let alone an Arab Kierkegaard. They best they have is Qutb. Islamic scholars are either Qutbists or Wahabists, which is a bit like chosing which bow and arrow to pick for the deer hunt. They're both hopelesly out-dated. With Internet I'm hoping things will speed up.

[TomOfSweden]

welli agree we should have invaded iraq but not for the war on terror and wmd's it was something that needed to be finished.as far as the war on terror we should have invaded saudi arabia after all 15 of the terrorists in the planes were saudi's.I am going to sound like an extremest about islam but i have studied it and understand it better than most non-muslims.A member of islam can lie to his wife anyone he is doing buisness with and especially the enemy it is not a sin.I will say its not so much the common everyday muslim you have to worry about like with all religons its the extremests the trouble is its the extremests that are incharge of these middle eastren countries.

Lying isn't a sin for an atheists either...and it's legal being atheist in USA. So what's your point?

It wasn't the Saudi govornement that attacked world trade center, but private Saudi citizens. I'm not a big fan of collective punishments.

I have other issues with Saudi Arabia other than Islam. Basically that it's still a monarchy. They have started with some democratic reforms, but it's mostly just token reforms to keep the population happy.

They do in practice have a free debate in Saudi Arabia. Since everybody has a satelite dish and all networks are based in London. Internet access is unsuccesfully monitored. On paper they are a police state, but with the media reaching everywhere today it's impossible to keep a lid on it.

I think that if we leave them alone, they'll in time become democratic all on their own.

[TomOfSweden]

I love wikipedia. Here's a breakdown of all schools of Islamic philosophy. You might learn a thing or two Master Stone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

If I could I would do nothing but read wiki articles.

[mkemse]

I love wikipedia. Here's a breakdown of all schools of Islamic philosophy. You might learn a thing or two Master Stone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

If I could I would do nothing but read wiki articles.

The only problem with Wwikipesia and even they admit it, do not sue it as a primary source as user can edit any info listed bythe, the have an edit button at thetop, so if you wantto change what they have on any entry you go to the top hit edit and you can delete or add any info you wanyed
would not trustthe except in siutationsdwere i knew the answer and wanted to verify it

[TomOfSweden]

The only problem with Wwikipesia and even they admit it, do not sue it as a primary source as user can edit any info listed bythe, the have an edit button at thetop, so if you wantto change what they have on any entry you go to the top hit edit and you can delete or add any info you wanyed
would not trustthe except in siutationsdwere i knew the answer and wanted to verify it

You must have missed this little nugget of information based on research released in december of 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Wikipedia has the same number of factual errors per article as Encyclopedia Brittanica, which until then was seen as the worlds most accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia simply rocks.

Since then wikipedia has tightened up control and controversial articles can only be changed if your on the comitee, which as a rule are headed by real scientists, (at least I know Swedish wikipedia is, and there's no reason for me to believe it's handled differently in the English one). So now it's even more accurate.

I think chances are pretty good that wikipedia is the worlds most accurate encyclopedia, and research suports it. So there. There's been more research after this, (funded by Encyclopedia Britanica off-course) that failed to debunk it.

Wikipedia still can't be used for serious scientific research, for obvious reasons of traceability. But it would be foolish to discount it simply based on it being wikipedia.

I think it's secret is just the fact that anybody can edit it. No other encyclopedia has more proofreaders.

[mkemse]

I think chances are pretty good that wikipedia is the worlds most accurate encyclopedia, and research suports it. So there. There's been more research after this, (funded by Encyclopedia Britanica off-course) that failed to debunk it.


The owners of th site were on TV here in the US 2 nights ago and strongly recommended that schol students be they high school or college do NOT use their site as a definite answer because ofthe editing ability of user, additionaly alot of college professors in the United State no longer accept their site for reasearch purposes and tell their students if you use the site make sure you use a secondary source to make sure your research is accurate i was there last night, i did not edit anything but as a registered user or annyimously user i was able to edit anything i wanted and save it on any entry i looked at
Not arguing with you, just making a point about the use of their site

[mkemse]

I took this off thir site 2 minutes ago and reaffirms what i heard and saw on tv

How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.

You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!

Make your first edit right now:

Click here to add a new section. (If there are already sections under "Test edits", you can also click on the appropriate "edit" link and edit someone else's text.)
Type a subject line and some text
Please, remember that while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it is not a forum! No profanity, libel, or personal attacks will be tolerated.
Sign by entering four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon. This will automatically produce your name and the date.
Click Show preview to test your changes, or Save page when you're happy with the way it looks. (It will usually not stay for long, though.)
Next: Learn more about editing → Test edits

even they say in the instruction as i posted here anyone can edit anything at anytime unless this is different then the site you mentioned in your post
if so and i have the wrong site, my apologies ahead of time

[mkemse]

If you go into the site as an annymous user and edit, your IP adress is visible, if you go in as a registered user, your IP address is hidden, but the simple fact that anyone can edit any entry at anytime and they encourage users to edit as mentioned above, would make this a site i would not want to depend on for accurate information, and they stress this, i would use it, but certainly not as a definite answer for any research

[TomOfSweden]

The owners of th site were on TV here in the US 2 nights ago and strongly recommended that schol students be they high school or college do NOT use their site as a definite answer because ofthe editing ability of user, additionaly alot of college professors in the United State no longer accept their site for reasearch purposes and tell their students if you use the site make sure you use a secondary source to make sure your research is accurate i was there last night, i did not edit anything but as a registered user or annyimously user i was able to edit anything i wanted and save it on any entry i looked at
Not arguing with you, just making a point about the use of their site

erm....I'm a bit lost for words here. Our modern school system is based on aplying the scientific method. The scientific method clearly states that we should not take anything as scientific truth unless we have a reference to a person. The trail must end at a physical and identifiable person. The fact that a US high school doesn't accept wikipedia as a reference is erm... You lost me.... How is this relevant to wikipedia? It seems that there's such a basic feature of our educational system you haven't grasped, that I don't know what to say. It doesn't debunk wikipedias correctness in the least, only it's ability to act as a scientific reference which I won't argue with.

I'm willing to bet that no US professors have ever accepted wikipedia as a reference. Not ever. Which I'm very happy with. But it's a great source of easily digested information all the same.

When I do scientific research, (which incidentaly is what I do for a living right now) I usually start by going to wikipedia to check what sources their are. And then track down it's source. But I would never make a reference to wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia.

[TomOfSweden]

even they say in the instruction as i posted here anyone can edit anything at anytime unless this is different then the site you mentioned in your post
if so and i have the wrong site, my apologies ahead of time

Your objection seems to be based on the assumption that because anybody can edit it, anybody will? Research shows that this isn't happening. Research shows that people who edit it, as a rule, actually know what they're doing.

It surprised me to.

[mkemse]

You must have missed this little nugget of information based on research released in december of 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

Wikipedia has the same number of factual errors per article as Encyclopedia Brittanica, which until then was seen as the worlds most accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia simply rocks.

Since then wikipedia has tightened up control and controversial articles can only be changed if your on the comitee, which as a rule are headed by real scientists, (at least I know Swedish wikipedia is, and there's no reason for me to believe it's handled differently in the English one). So now it's even more accurate.

I think chances are pretty good that wikipedia is the worlds most accurate encyclopedia, and research suports it. So there. There's been more research after this, (funded by Encyclopedia Britanica off-course) that failed to debunk it.

Wikipedia still can't be used for serious scientific research, for obvious reasons of traceability. But it would be foolish to discount it simply based on it being wikipedia.

I think it's secret is just the fact that anybody can edit it. No other encyclopedia has more proofreaders.

I agree and disagree if i may, i realuize the have countells proffreaders, but that does still not insure the accuracy of information, as the proffreaders are only as accurate as the person is
If their securit has tightened up it has failed as i did a complet edit on a entrties 5 minutes ago
I do agree that i would not use the site for any serious research but it is still fun to use regardless

My information i posted is based on an TV interview here in the US 2 days ago but the owners ofthe site who told viewers do not use the site for any searious research, i have to assume that a interview 2 days ago with one ofthe founding owners would be more current and relivent then a posted dated back to 2005, but i truely apprciate your brinig what you did to my attention
To be honest if i was doing serious research i would go to my local library anyone i would not trust any internet site for accurate info
I lok up 2 medical terms the other day, got 2 different replies and my docotor told me do not use the net for reliable medical information, ask me or go t the library

Just a thought and opion

And congrats on your engamement, can't forget that, that is far more important