Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Canada

2009-08-06T15:28:37Z

ATang: /* Religion */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-08-06T15:26:24Z

ATang: Spelling

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% )report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-08-06T15:22:29Z

ATang: /* Policy */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largekly cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kidergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% )report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of sentors appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governer General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-08-06T15:22:07Z

ATang: /* Policy */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largekly cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kidergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% )report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of sentors appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governer General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite groweing Canadian annoyance with restrrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong sypporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime ministeer in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Talk:Black hole

2009-08-06T15:03:33Z

ATang: /* Impossible? */

==Extremely high density==

Technically, it's undefined, no? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

did you know the 'Black Holes FAQ', which there is a link to, was written in 1995? -stevenM

== Existence confirmed? ==

Perhaps I was hasty. I will reconsider. Any other sources I might find enlightening, perhaps from a YEC perspective? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:16, 7 January 2009 (EST)

[[Talk:Atheistic Style#Black Holes]] covers it quite well. I don't know of any evidence from a '''reliable''' source that shows the existence of Black holes. This "can't be directly observed" thing reminds me a bit too much of evolution. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Even wikipedia's article notes that all of the different pieces of evidence of a black hole are problematic and can be explained by other sources. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::This is why the article starts by stating "A black hole is a '''theoretical''' mass with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation" I also don't see how NASA or UCLA Berkely are unreliable sources for astronomy. As for "can't be directly observed",there are numerous articles on CP related to Intelligent Design that don't rely on direct observations of a designer to discuss the apparent presence of design in nature.

::The beauty of science that it's always open to review and reassessment as new discoveries come to light. In time man's understanding of Black Holes may be different from this article, but we owe the readers the best current explanations available. I'm not suggesting censorship - all credible alternate theories should be listed, but stating that there have been no observations of one is false - by definition they are not directly observable, so proving they exist relies on indirect observation and physics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::There is no place called "UCLA Berkely".
:::ID is bolstered by the direct observation available from Genesis.
:::The best explanation is not always the explanation espoused by Californians.
:::We know how our universe began. If NASA & discovery.com deny it, they lose credibility, and their other statements come under greater scrutiny. If you met someone today who insisted that the sky is red and that Sears closes at 10, you would be wise to check the store hours yourself. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:58, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::Okay, my mistake regarding Berkely notwithstanding, my last reversion is based on two simple things. The word "is" should not be replaced by "would be" - it ''is'' a characteristic of black holes within the theory that describes them. Second, the use of [[Big Science]] as a term on CP was started by an admitted parodist, and equating NASA with it, frankly comes across as parody as well. Instead of diluting references to good science, spend more time supporting alternate explanations constructively. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:07, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::::"Would be" is appropriate for hypothetical things. We say "Dole would have been a better President than Clinton," not "Dole was a better President than Clinton," even "within a theory that describes" Dole as being elected.
:::::"Big Science" was used in ''[[Expelled]]''. You don't think that was parody, do you?
:::::"Berkely" isn't a place, either.
:::::It seems like I'm the only one trying to make constructive edits towards a compromise. I guess this is not surprising, given the content on [[User:DinsdaleP]]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::BHarlan, I believe that you do not understand a small but important bit of information, most astronomical discoveries are collaborative efforts usually initiated by small independent astronomers. When you say big science you could classify biosciences like that, but astronomy is totally different.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:19, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The so-called "evidence" for Black holes does not fit a pattern like the one you describe. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent)

I'm not making any other changes to the revision just posted by Aschlafly. To BHarlan, I make no apologies for my User Page content. If the CP leadership wishes to block me over my [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DinsdaleP contributions] they have the right to do so at any time, but I feel that my efforts here are constructive even when I disagree with others. Feel free to have the last word on this, I'm moving on to other topics. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Black holes have been spotted by a number of well-respected astronomical institutes for decades, with those discoveries tested and confirmed repeatedly. Your edits are unsupported by either fact or citation Andy, so under the rules youelf created I have no choice but to revert your edits, whereas the edits saying that black holes have been spotted are fully cited with references from reputable sources including NASA, an organisation fully backed by all US Governments, including conservative governments, since its inception.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Your sarcastic edit comments are not welcome here. You might want to check "youelf", else you might end up wrecking youelf.
:Also, you always have a choice! Do you deny this choice? That is a typical sentiment of materialists. If you do not believe in your soul, you will receive a nasty surprise pretty soon, and it won't just be the non-existence of black holes!
:Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English.
:Also, NASA has taken a sad left turn as of late. This is one of the reasons the U.S.A.F. has its own space program. Do you see?
:Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::My my, I miss a 's' in a typo and you decide to launch an ad hominem attack… Very 'christian' of you, or then again; not.
::''"Also, that is not how "whereas" is used in standard English".'' That might not be how you use it with your standard of English, but as anyone who has been taught the correct way to use the English language knows, it's perfectly correct. Oh, and a little, free, friendly lesson regarding the use of written English : You never start consecutive paragraphs with the same word unless it is absolutely necessary, which, in your above post it wasn't. If you are having trouble with your synonyms I heartily recommend using a thesaurus.
::The military space research programmes exist solely to explore the possible military applications of space. All civilian space programmes, including government projects run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.). This is common knowledge amongst those who know anything about this subject.
::Stating that black holes don't exist is akin to believing the moon landing was faked. The existence of black holes and the fact that they have been spotted is undisputed by anyone who has the knowledge and experience to know what they are looking at. I have had the privilege of seeing two of these black holes myself. They are out there and have been spotted, and that is a direct, firsthand witness statement.
::May you be touched by his noodly appendage, or if that isn't your cup of tea, may you be blessed by the goat Heidrún. RAmen.-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 17:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::* It's "an 's'", not "a 's'".
:::* If you missed just one 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules youself created", which is ''still'' wrong.
:::* If you missed an 'r' and an 's', then that part of the sentence would read "under the rules yourself created", which is '''still''' wrong.
:::* An [[ad hominem]] attack means to reply to the logic in your arguments by attacking your character. I did no such thing. I didn't attack your character in any way. I asked if you were a materialist, then pointed out that materialists are Hell-bound. If you have a problem with your final resting place, I suggest you reconsider your path in life. I do not suggest that the Hell-bound are never able to make logical arguments.
:::* "Christian" is capitalized. Did you leave it uncapitalized on purpose? If so, I suggest you blaspheme somewhere else.
:::* That is not how semicolons are used in standard English.
:::* You need a comma after "but" for the aside.
:::* You do not need commas around "friendly", just like you don't need commas around "red" in "big red inflatable ball"
:::* I will not discuss the friendly lesson here, except to note that stylistic choices are different than maintaining correctness. Comma placement and word choice are different beasts.
:::* The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it.
:::* Hyperbole about the moon landing is simply rhetoric. If there is no argument, there can be no response.
:::* Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here.
:::* Black holes can't be seen. What I suppose you mean is that you infer their existence. Your inference is not particularly convincing.
:::* Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God.
:::* I am done with this pointless, blasphemous discussion. It is not encyclopedic. I suggest you contribute to this encyclopedia. It is a good way to improve your writing skills. I have been contributing partially for that reason. Maybe you could join me in adding articles and value, rather than taking the name of my Lord in vain?
:::* If you decide not to, you may have the last word here, as I will no longer reply to this silliness. I hope you will decide to contribute instead. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::: *Sigh* ''"a wit, an arrow, across the head it passed, an apple not pierced today"'', an 'r' and an 's', my apologies, how can such typos be left to pass, expecially when they are nothing to do with the argument at hand, well done for picking up such niggling detail, and yet avoiding the point of the argument. Admittedly I missed the n in an, but again, a typo, they happen. ''"Wikipedia may accept your anonymous evidence, but we are more careful here"'', how does evidence from NASA count as anonymous evidence?…at all?…in any way?…whatsoever? As for an ad hominen attack, your argument provided no evidence against the existence of black holes, merely an attack on myself, the purest definition of ad hominen (a course in Latin will help you there). Christian or christian, depends on how you want to write it and on your own beliefs. Me, not my belief, and as I don't believe I cannot blaspheme, after all, how can you blaspheme against something that does not exist to be blasphemed? Use of semicolons in standard English? Again, I refer you to the fact the your standard of English might not be sufficient to use them in such regard. I recommend increasing your quality of English by beginning with Chaucer and reading your way up. At some point you will realise that the use of English in any form is an art, not a science, and that language is to be used in such a way as to provoke delight, wonder and thought with its writing, and beyond the obvious rules of form, there are no hard and fast rules, merely that of metre, pace and illumination. ''"The sentence starting "All civilian" has no main verb, so I can't respond to it"'', '''run''', it's a verb, hard to miss, I'll admit to missing a comma (the sentence should read ''"All civilian space programmes, including government projects, run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)"'', but missing the word '''run''' *shakes head in disbelief*: if you insist on a purer form for that sentence, how about "All civilian space programmes, including government projects, are run through the relevant Space Agencies (NASA, ESA, etc.)", but all things being equal, both sentences say the same thing. Moon landing = the sum of evidence gathered concerning the existence of black holes, and that they have been spotted, is greater than the evidence that the moon landing occurred in 1969, hence the corollary. ''"Please take your graven goat pasta idols elsewhere. Here we show some simple respect for God"'', I found it offensive that you forced your beliefs on me, now you have found it offensive when I have forced my beliefs on you, with luck you will have learnt a lesson there, don't force your beliefs and prayers on me and I will return the favour by not blessing you with a little sarcastic FSM (oh, and a little FYI, the word graven means carved and I'm sure that the old FSM hasn't been carved yet and, in addition, I doubt that there are any extant carvings of Thor's goats, although I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in that regard.)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:13, 13 January 2009 (EST)

I have researched an extensive amount about black holes, and am about to add more information to the article that I hope will prove to be interesting and useful (I will, of course, cite my sources). I am also adding a couple of updates, as some of the information in the article is dated. As a topic about which scientists are still learning, that happens a lot. I hope the updates will improve the quality of the article and its use for educational purposes. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== Impossible? ==

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."

Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that ''anything'' does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.

:Falsifiability is not the ''only'' criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not ''unscientific.'' But that opening is pretty much accurate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes ''could'' be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory ''at present'' to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole ''could never'' exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.

:: Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::The existence of black holes is ''not'' falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.

:::: However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)

:::::Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even ''mention'' the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories ''are'' [[falsifiable]] (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are ''not'' falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or [[string theory]]. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than [[Karl Popper]] in making [[falsifiability]] part of the definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist ''is'' falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
:The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

:: No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Abortion

2009-07-31T20:18:57Z

ATang: /* Picture of the Smellie Forcep */ new section

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Pro-Abortion Distortion ... Rebutted ==
I wanted to know the process of abortion, not the pro-life opinion on abortion. I am pro-life, but this page does not describe the actual abortion itself.

As provided by the national cancer institute (the real one, not the name-hijacking national cancer institution of abortion) there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage]</ref> The positive cancer preventing attributes of birth are distinct from the causality of cancer by abortion. The studies indicate that women who have abortions and women who do not give birth are at equal risk of breast cancer.

: Your comment is misleading. Read the entry with an open mind. The evidence is overwhelming that abortion increases the pregnant woman's risk of breast cancer.

: There's over a billion dollars and other incentives to deceive the public into accepting abortion. Don't be taken in by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

"About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child decide not to abort." Why is this sentence in bold? It might be an important piece of evidence, but the statistics are not 100% perfect, nor is there an obvious conclusion to draw from it. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:38, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

Also, why is there a picture of an ultrasound which supposedly pictures Jesus? What does that have to do with abortion? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 03:43, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: From my perspective, it looks like Jesus on the cross. --[[User:ChrisZ|ChrisZ]] 03:50, 26 July 2009 (EDT)

== Rename Article? ==
I came to this article to read about what Abortion is, but instead I got completely overwhelmed by how bad it is. I actually had to go to Wikipedia to see what Abortion is, and how it is done. Then comming back here, I finally understood why ''such'' a large part of this article is devoted to why abortion is bad. Either there needs to be a section in this article that describes what abortion is, how it is done, etc... OR this article needs to be renamed to "Problems with Abortion" or something like that.

==Typo(s)===
<blockquote>
At the continued rate, racism by abortion will kill decimate the black populace of the U.S.
</blockquote> [[User:PrometheusX303|PrometheusX303]] 18:28, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

To illustrate my point, let me make an analogy with a hypothetical article called "Drugs."

Conservapedia's article is like the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are bad. Stay away.''

Wikipedia's article is the following:
'''Drugs'''
''Drugs are a class of chemicals that affect the central nervous system. They are used for recreation... (informative stuff... more informative stuff, followed by liberal junk, liberal junk).''

Somebody who doesn't know what Drugs are going to find Wikipedia's article far more useful than conservapedia's, even though Drugs are bad. Can somebody please make ''this'' article more informative by mimicing Wikipedia but by also taking out the liberal junk, ''please''? --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 21:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Did you search the term "Drugs"? And if they are not up to your standards, what can you do to improve them? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::Wait, you misunderstood me; I used "drugs" as an example to illustrate my point. There needs to be a section in this article ''about what abortion is'', and ''how it is done'' and ''why it is done''. Everything else in the article is fine. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 22:45, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Your definition is misleading and downright false. ==
'''

I would just like to point out the the term abortion is used in the medical community to describe the termination of a pregnancy both voluntarily and involuntarily (otherwise known as a miscarriage)-- This came to my attention when I read a story about a woman who experienced severe degradation at a gynecologist's appointment for noting on her medical intake form that she had several abortions. In her case she was referring to a series of miscarriages. I don't think any person should be made to feel that horrible under any circumstance, but the fact that it was a complete misunderstanding based on existing personal beliefs and unwillingness on behalf of the doctor to even investigate before making her remarks makes it even more upsetting. If a doctor doesn't know something like this, how can the public be expected to when you perpetuate the wrong idea? This isn't a bias, its a fact. Words are very powerful and its wrong to tell readers only what you want them to think or know and leave out the rest. It's disrespectful.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assertion. I think it is necessary to include a mention early on in the article to how the medical definition of abortion varies from the popular definition. [[User:ConcernedScientist|ConcernedScientist]] 10:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

Northern Ireland: Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland (not as the article states 'legal but rare'). In common with other countries where abortion is illegal, allowances have been made where carrying the child to term would put the mother at too great a risk, and therefore an abortion may be performed. Women from Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, often find themselves in a situation where they 'get on the boat' and travel to England for an abortion instead.

:That's largely true. There are exceptions where abortions can be performed in Northern Ireland, basically for health reasons [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm]. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: "Health" exceptions are notoriously broad in some countries, and can even include "financial health." It is in the interests of the abortion industry to exaggerate its complaints about limitations on abortion in its desire to expand its business.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: The harm caused by the operation is most important and should receive greater weight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:45, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

The Bible clearly indicates in Jeremiah 1 and the Psalms that God regards an unborn baby as being a fully human being separate from any other, and as such, is subject to the protection from being murdered in the 6th Commandment. The Bible also has a great deal of historical evidence to support its accuracy. A read through Josh Mcdowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" should help to demonstrate this. [[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:25, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

* Support. I am also a Christian, and while I might agree with some of the views expressed in this article I recognise my opinions as one side of an argument. When an article is as biased as this is present it detracts from the factual nature. I propose this article is restructured to include more factual material, and what exists at present condensed into a section titled "moral issues with abortion".

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::So that allows you to ignore the studies Reuters references? Strange logic. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Every study denying an ABC link that I have looked at, such as [[Harvard Abortion Study]], I have found to be fraudulent or misleading. How many of those pro-abortion studies have you actually looked at? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Denying, pro-abortion? LOL, nice wording. Your opinions on these studies '''do not permit''' you to pretend they don't exist and not include them in the article. I have read recent studies, and GASP, I find them flawed regurgitations of scientific consensus. Doesn't excuse your excuses and assumptions about me and the researchers. After you're done getting over yourself and "pro-abortion" notions (people/scientists are allowed to simply be wrong without a grandiose agenda), mention them in the article with relevant (referenced) criticism; if you can't find criticism, then include them anyway! Also, don't refer to the studies as "Lancet" and "Harvard", that is authoritative wording used by anti-abortion breast cancer reporters (which makes up the majority, something you should also substantiate/analyze in the article, but you don't bother). Instead you should call these studies, "Melbye" and "Michels" studies, to clarify shortsighted people can be in charge scientific studies, not just online encyclopedias. If you just reference marginalized science and scientists, then your article will be of marginal quality, importance and persuasiveness. But hey, whatever, it's conservapedia that ends up looking bad. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 19:34, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That does not answer why studies indicating no link are not included. The answer seems obvious, they aren't included because people write about what they want to hear. There are very large studies indicating no link -- which form the current scientific consensus by the way -- and so should be included. Murray is assuming they are "methodologically sound," I do not take the NCI's nor the media's interpretation of the evidence at face value; but how people here think it is okay to excluded from the article is beyond me.

::::Also, there is no mention of criticism of studies which indicate an ABC link, such as response bias and small data sets. There is plenty of criticism of these studies but has not been mentioned here. The section also repeatedly makes use of the word "expert", yet cites no expert who concludes there is marginal or no ABC link; I'm sure they exist. - [[User:LouisFriend|LouisFriend]] 12:22, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

If a woman's chance of getting breast cancer is x, then what you're implying with articles like these headlines is that an abortion raises that chance to "x plus something", when the reality is that it stays the same - only if she gives birth does the probability go to "x minus something".
This is not the way a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should written. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:35, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic you have used in this article about breast cancer; abstinence is as bad as an abortion. Both increase (to the same amount) the risk of breast cancer, as you are not having a baby (which you state decreases the risk of breast cancer). So the very thing you are suggesting people to do (abstinence), is something that increases breast cancer (your argument, as they wont have a baby) which is the reason you are telling people not to have an abortion. Surely, surely a contradiction here. Unless we can find a solution to the contradiction, this section on breast cancer needs to be removed.

: No, your logic is fallacious. [[Abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer more than not having children. Also, abstinence reduces the transfer of sexually transmitted diseases, and abstinence (outside of marriage) reduces the risk of health problems, including breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.obgyn.net/displayarticle.asp?page=/english/pubs/articles/nuns] references a study that puts nuns at a greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/bcancer1.html] is another that refrences a study for nuns at greater risk for breast cancer. [http://www.popline.org/docs/0078/690575.html] is a study itself that reads "Nuns displayed a striking excess in breast cancer mortality over the age span of 40-74 years and had consistently higher rates than controls for each age group above 39 years." Do you have any links to a study that shows a decreased risk for breast cancer for nuns (who I assume practice abstinence). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:57, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Nuns predictably would have an elevated risk of breast cancer. One who has an [[abortion]] is incurring that risk '''plus''' an increased risk arising from the interruption of a pregnancy. Note that pro-[[abortion]] advocates deny any increased risk of breast cancer from an [[abortion]], which makes no sense in light of what you just said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: Multiple the number of abortions worldwide by the charges for those abortions. It's way over a billion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:44, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bizarre fixation on abortion==

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion==

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion in minnesota ==

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf 14,065 abortions in Minnesota in 2006 according to Minnesota Department of Health. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks. I just added it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:23, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Health risks ==

The section headed ''health risks'' should start out with the fact that abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child (except when the child survives, which is even more gruesome). [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. I added it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

I think a new section would be justified talking about the use of forced abortion as a population control tool. I personally know somebody who took part in round-ups of women for forced abortion and have personally seen family planning officials stationed outside a block of flats in order to coerce a women hiding in one of the flats to go and have an abortion. Here's my suggestion. Perhaps others could add some improvements

== Forced Abortion as a Family Planning Enforcement Tool ==

Abortion is not only legal up to full term in the [[Peoples Republic of China]] but is frequently used both as a method of [[birth control]] and an instrument of enforcement of that country's [[one-child policy]], despite official protestations to the contrary.

From the introduction of the [[family planning]] policy in the 1970's until the early 21st century, coerced or forced abortion was used as an instrument of enforcement against women who violated the one child rule. Local officials are held responsible for meeting birth targets in their areas and are usually the ones invovled in such action. In rural areas, teams would be sent out to villages to round up pregnant women without birth permits and take them to a hospital where they would be forced to have abortions. In urban areas, if a pregnant woman was discovered in hiding without a birth permit, the local family planning office would have people stationed by the entrance to the block until the woman either agreed to abort the baby or was forcibly taken.

Despite the use of forced abortion being outlawed by the central government, the practice has persisted in some areas, most notably, [[Linyi]], [[Shandong]] Province, where it was exposed to [[''Time'']] magazine by blind [[activist]] [[Chen Guangcheng]] in 2005. As a result of his expose of Linyi officials, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months prison for "intentionally damaging property" and "organising a crowd to disturb traffic" after a [[show trial]] in August 2006.
[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 10:04, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==Hypocrisy==
How can conservapedia devote an entire article to bias in wikipedia, and then vomit out a bias-ridden article like this mess? It's the same with other articles on atheism, homosexuality, Islam and other anti-Conservative topics. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral - this isn't neutral it is republican party propaganda. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 16:12, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: No, this isn't republican party propaganda; the GOP isn't this extremist! Seriously, this is more of an essay or blog than an encyclopedia article. [[User:Gootbean|Gootbean]] 16:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:: One comment above uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "hypocrisy"; the other uses the [[liberal]] favorite word "extremist"! Check out [[liberal style]] and see yourselves in the mirror.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I kind of wonder about their use of the word "extremists" on us. We're not the ones killing children here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::: Right. Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream! Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of [[liberals]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::::I do have to say that this article has issues. It is currently a piece of propaganda, not a good encyclopedia article. This all should be mentioned, sure (the idea of Conservapedia is to avoid the censorship so common to such causes), but if we want to create an encyclopdia people can come to an read (not read a political treatise), we should fix this up. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I find it odd that you just have come to Conservapedia, and seconds later you begin lecturing sysops about the ideals of Conservapedia. I would tread lightly, because your motivations seem questionable at best. If you are here to edit fine, but if you are here, as I suspect, to stir up trouble, then please feel free to leave. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 19:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:::"Saving lives is "extremist", implying that the opposite is mainstream!" -- Well, isn't it? The words have nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a term about popularity. Support for abortion is mainstream, as google defines it: ''The prevailing current of thought influence or activity supported by dominant cultures and institutions.'' [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 13:28, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, it's not mainstream, except by those who benefit from the [[abortion industry]] or are fooled by it. President [[George W. Bush]] was elected and re-elected by opposing [[abortion]], as does [[John McCain]].

==Picture==
Is the picture of the unborn fetus really an integral part of this article? Because I can see it being used as ammo by PETA loons bent on trying to stick cute pictures of cows into the [[hamburger]] and [[beef]] articles. "Give a man an inch..." -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 14:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

: That's your sole contribution to this encyclopedia. How about doing yourself a favor, and [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|opening your mind]] a bit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

::I made a suggestion about how to close a potential loophole, which people here are free to either take up or pass over, but I would appreciate it if others would consider things on merit, and not resort to roundabout, ad hominem jabs. -[[User:Capricorn|Capricorn]] 18:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]] ==

Please add a link to [[Abortion Facts]]; I cannot do it because [[Abortion]] is locked. [[User:StephenW|StephenW]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:Also, let's just unlock this article. What fun is it if I cannot edit [[abortion]], [[evolution]], and [[gun control]]? StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
::Are you serious? Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
:::Which says a lot about public opinion regarding Conservapedia - they're not stupid enough to take this page seriously. [[User:SMI|SMI]] 14:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Do you equate the acts of a few vandals with public opinion..? --[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 15:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::::"'''Think about the vandalism we would get if we opened those articles.'''" Think about the contributions conservapedia looses with these draconian measures (such as mine due to night time restrictions). StephenW[[User:StephenW|U]]·[[User_talk:StephenW|'''T''']]·[[Special:Contributions/StephenW|C]] 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: Stephen: "loses" is with only one "o". Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Stephen it's not as though a bunch of sysops just decided one day, "Eh, it would be really awesome if we just pissed people off by not letting them edit certain articles or at certain times!" Certain articles get lots of vandalism - which is why they are locked - all wikis do this. I'm not even going to respond to your reference to night editing as this page is not the place to vent your general frustration)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Hippocrates' Oath==

I suggest a reference to the oath in the second sentence of the article; not because it's at all contested, but simply in order to demonstrate clearly how it is "expressly prohibited". I would suggest the following:

<nowiki><ref>"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."</ref></nowiki>

I would add it myself instead of pestering here, but... the article is unfortunately still locked... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

The Hippocratic Oath forbids any kind of surgery in general, I feel that its use to decry abortion as a medically unacceptable procedure is outdated and inappropriate here.
[[User:Yatesan|Yatesan]] 9:57, 27 June 2008 (EST)

==Image==

The image presented at the beginning of the article is of a healthy fetus nearing 40 weeks (very close to birth) and is not a probable subject or candidate for abortion. [[User:Acronym|Acronym]]

:The fact that the child's eyes are formed but still sealed would indicate an age of around 12 weeks. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (EST)

== Proofedit at Legal History of Abortion in the United States ==

Since the article is locked, I cannot make this change. (Not complaining about the block, as its need is obvious.) There are 2 or 3 extraneous spaces between the [3] footnote and the following period. On my browser, this happens to hit right at the beginning of a line and looks very odd. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Abortion always stops the beating heart of the unborn child==
This is factually incorrect. The baby's heart begins to beat between 18-21 days after conception. Although it is unusual, it is possible, and does happen- particularly in cases of the so called "plan B" pill being used- that abortion occurs prior to the first heartbeat.

== Extreme Bias in Article! Specific quote found to support this ==

"There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life. Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles."
The way you phrase it, you seem to be saying that anyone who supports abortion is saying "Hey! Let's go kill a human!", which, due to the nature of abortion, is arguable and VERY controversial. Also, you put people who oppose it in much better light, saying that they are "...motivated by '''religious''' and '''ethical principles'''." If this wiki is actually nonbias, you should be changing that line ASAP, otherwise you're just another opinionated wiki. {{unsigned|Astinzo}} 20:59, 4 March 2008

:We're citing the extreme bias that certain people have against letting an unborn child live. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

== Picture? ==

I'm not sure if the picture of the human fetus in utero included in this article could be considered family-friendly, considering its graphic and jarring nature and given that one of the Conservapedia Commandments is that articles must be family-friendly and unoffensive. {{unsigned|Pianycist}} 13:27, 10 April 2008

: Do you find a picture of an unborn child "graphic and jarring"? We don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Abortion and Suicide ==

Interested parties are encouraged to help develop the stub [[abortion and suicide]]. I've provided a good bit of documentation to reliable sources to get started. I also plan to do the same regarding a large number of studies showing a strong link between abortion and substance abuse. I have a ton of resources to contribute but not a lot of time for editing and fashioning them into a good, readable article. I would appreciate the help of additional editors.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 13:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Why is the article locked?==
I want to insert some information into the article about how supporters of abortion never deny that it is murder and instead just give meaningless statements such as "women should have the right to choose".--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 17:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Your see also list has [[Abortion Facts]] on there twice. Might be wise to remove one. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 14:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

== Fetus wrong ==

The human fetus is inaccurate. abortions are ALMOST NEVER done anywhere near this point. Always stops the "beating heart" is also inaccurate because the heart has not developed. Use of this image is an example of bleeding-heart pandering.

: Please try again in a more coherent manner. Are you referring to the picture? Many, many [[abortions]] are done at that stage, and later. And doing an [[abortion]] earlier is a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures Generated ==

Is the first picture computer generated? It looks so realistic that its unrealistic.

: No, it's implausible to think a computer generated that photo. Many similar, actual photos are widely available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Ultimate Goal is Reducing Abortion, yes? ==

I think that this page should have a very stong message of how to reduce the number of abortions. I think that everyone, including the most rabid pro-lifers would have to agree that in an ideal society abortion would not exist. A quick investigation into which countries have extremely low abortion rates would be a starting point for what works. For example, Sweden, often quoted as the ideal liberal society with freely available sexual education and contraception for youth has an unacceptably high abortion rate. About the same as the U.S. But Holland and Belgium, both very secular societies with similar attitudes towards sexual education and contraception have abortion rates about half of the U.S. It appears that outlawing abortion has a dramatic effect on the number of abortions performed but there are also countries like Austria with liberal abortion laws that have extremely low abortion rates.

'''This wall chart shows worldwide abortion statistics and would be useful for anyone researching abortion, as I hope that many people use this site for.'''

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_Abortion_Policies_Chart/2007_WallChart.pdf

It is interesting to see how Canada's abortion rate is 25% less than the U.S. rate. They are relatively similar societies, with Canada being viewed as being more liberal, with more liberal abortion laws.

As well, to present both sides of the story, it should be noted that some researchers contend that outlawing abortion just pushes it underground. In a surprisingly balanced article for the liberal press, here is an article that presents both sides of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Aside from working to outlaw abortion, I think that truly Christian, Conservative activists should research what programs are effective in reducing abortion rates. Abstinence seems not to work, and if contraception is the answer, I think that the small sin of premarital sex with protection far outweighs the big sin of murdering a child.

What do the site adminsitrators and readers think? Is this part of a balanced discussion of abortion.

Jeremyh

: I found the UN table to be liberal claptrap, spreading more misinformation than anything else. The table does confirm that Poland and Ireland, where abortion is illegal, have almost no abortions. Well, no kidding. As to other countries, the table does not differentiate between the various types of abortion regulations that have a big effect on numbers of abortion, such as informed consent, parental consent, bans on abortions after a certain number of weeks, etc. Are Austria's abortion laws really as liberal as the table claims? I doubt they are nearly as liberal as the United States. Also, note that demographics are vastly different between countries like the United States and Canada, and abortion rates vary widely based on demographics with all else the same.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the UN is probably not the best source for non-liberal information. I have found a better site that breaks down the laws somewhat better, but still is missing the consent aspect. (It appears to be a pro-life site)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

As well it would be foolish and naive to assume that there are no abortions performed in Poland or Ireland. The figures that any goverment agency will give you are offical statistics. Any investigation into the exact number of illegal abortions performed in these countries are bound to be tainted with researcher prejudice. I don't know these figures, and I doubt that anyone really knows with any accuracy. Some liberal researchers put the figures questionably high in order to support their cause of keeping abortion legal. The fact is that abortion laws do not affect these illegal abortions.

I don't want to harp on Austria, but it just seemed so weird that I did a little research. Apparently they have extremely liberal abortion laws and even have legalized the 'abortion pill'. What the heck is going on there? Should we ignore countries like Austria and Belgium? Or should we see if they are doing something right to stop the indiscriminate murder of babies?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2970/2001/00000001/00000001/art00002

I do not claim to know the answer, but it seems that a wider approach is needed to stop abortion in conjunction to working towards banning it. It may sound facetious, but we have had a 100% strictly enforced ban on murder (of adults)in this country for over 200 years and it has not stopped people from murdering each other. Of course we should ban abortion, but what else is in our arsenal to stop this evil? And what the heck are we doing wrong in the U.S. that our abortion rates higher than most Western European nations, and are only outstripped by former Communist countries where the culture was to use abortion as birth control?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

== Morality of Abortion ==

It seems so far that the morality of abortion hinges on the question of whether or not it involves termination of human life. Let me then pose this question: In medical research laboratories, colonies of human cells of various types are often grown in petri dishes in order to study medications and diseases at a cellular level. These cells metabolize (they are in fact alive) and are, genetically speaking, definitely human. If abortion is morally wrong because it involves the termination of human life, is the fixing and staining of human cell cultures morally wrong?
[[User:Cwb|Cwb]]

: Cells are not necessarily human lives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

:: The question then becomes what is human life, and what is not? You state that cells are not always human life. But a human embryo is little more than a bundle of cells. What exactly makes an embryo a human life and human cell cultures not human life? [[User:Cwb|Cwb]] 17:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

::: A random bunch of cells can't become a human, but a embryo can. That's the difference. [[User:Patriot1505]]

== The Bible and Abortion ==

I am surprised to see that there is no mention of the Bible's explicit condemnation of abortion in this article. I will write up a section on this if a sysop is willing to unlock it later. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:I believe the relationship between the Bible and abortion is a complicated topic worthy of discussion; I have heard Christian pro-choice advocates quote Exodus 21:22-25, wherein God apparently deems men who kill an unborn child to be not guilty of murder. I, too, would be willing to contribute if a sysop unlocks the article, and will do my best to treat this subject with fairness. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 18:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: Just start a new entry, like the [[Abortion and the Bible]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::I did just that, thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:IsusBineDezaproba|IsusBineDezaproba]] 01:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

== One-sided graphic display ==

The image at the top of the article is not representative of most aborted fetuses; it almost looks like a baby for crying out loud. An image like Fetus1.jpg would be more appropriate.

== What about women. ==

This Article says nothing about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own own body.
[[User:Hwuya|Hwuya]] 18:11, 24 November 2008 (EDT)
: one could argue that she makes a choice when she elects to become pregnant. I concede that special situation for rape may apply. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Abortion is murder ==

I was stunned to see that the word "murder" does not appear anywhere in the article. Is Conservapedia trying to placate liberals, or pander to liberal viewpoints? This is a simple matter of clear and logical thinking: murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Unborn children are innocent people: therefore, abortion is murder.

I am new here, and I humbly apologize if I am out of my depth, but I feel very strongly about this. I do not believe we should shy away from boldly stating the truth, even if the liberal media does. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but pro-life leader [[Henry Hyde]] didn't use the word "murder" either. That term entails a legal or moral judgment and this entry has more of a scientific nature, like the rest of this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. It's your decision, of course. I just believe it is the duty of Christians to judge immorality, where the Bible or even common sense dictates. We don't pretend that [[gay rights]] or [[liberal values]] are morally sound on those pages, and evading the issue here leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

:: I am happy to trust your judgment on this issue, though. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:55, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::I applaud both your sentiment and your decision. After all, it is discipline as well as truthfulness that distinguishes us from WP. [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 09:04, 5 January 2009 (EST)

== Abortion is a million dollar industry ==

I would like to point out that abortion is not something done purely for profit, nor do those who run clinics do it for the purposes of earning a lot of money. I think this part of the article os erroneous.

: Wow, you've really been taken in by the abortion propaganda. Check how much the leading advocates of abortion make in one year. You'd be lucky to make the same amount in ten years of hard work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== The fetus in the picture... ==

Does anyone have any idea how old s/he is? I think it would benefit to say "A human fetus at ___ weeks old." [[User:Shatoyaah|Shatoyaah]] 18:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I would say approximately 4-5 months, but I'm not entirely sure.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 18:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::It is approximately 3-4 months old.[[User:JohnHC|JohnHC]] 20:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

== How about high quality video? ==

How about links to high-quality video also, rather than merely ultrasounds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Sure. Next time I get a chance. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:39, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Planned parenthood's racism ==

Should we include the incident where palnned parenthood called wanting less black people in the world "understandable"? And wasn't their founder also a racist?
:That information is in the [[Planned Parenthood]] article, actually. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Picture of the Smellie Forcep ==

Maybe it should be mentioned that it's not solely an "abortion tool" - it is used in regular childbirth as well. Rebranding it as an "abortion tool" is like naming a gun an "armed robbery tool". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 16:18, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Antichrist

2009-07-31T19:51:30Z

ATang: Undo revision 687663 by Jpatt (Talk) Irrelevant and strained word association.

The '''Antichrist''' in Premillennialism<ref>{{cite web| title=Premillennialism| url=http://www.theopedia.com/Premillennialism| publisher=Theopedia, an Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity}}</ref> will persecute faithful Christians during the [[Tribulation]].

==Etymology==

The word '''Antichrist''' comes from the [[Greek]] αντί-χριστος (''anti''-''khristos''), meaning ''opposite of Christ''. The Greek word ''anti'' can also mean 'instead of' or "equal to, like" so that the phrase can also be interpreted as meaning ''in place of, or like, Christ'' so while opposing Christ the antichrist will try to appear to be like Christ. Some Christians believe that the use in John refers to a single being that will appear in the [[End Times]]. This view is most commonly found among [[Premillennialism|premillennialist Christians]]. In modern useage, the term is usually used to refer to one who is pure evil.

== The Antichrist in the Bible ==
The following verses are the only verses which directly use the word Antichrist ([[KJV]])

:I John 2:18 'as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists'

:I John 2:22 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieith the Father and the Son.'

:I John 4:3 'And every spirit that confesseth not that [[Jesus]] Christ is come in the flesh is not of [[God]]: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

:2 John 7: 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'

Based on the lack of direct references, some Christians argue that the Bible refers only to a ''generalized concept'' of Antichrist, applicable to anybody who is 'against Christ', not to a particular person. Moreover, such 'antichrists' were already present in the world nearly two thousand years ago. Other Christian, such as the [[Catholic Church]] and many [[Protestant]] denominations, have argued that these verses mainly prefigure the actual Antichrist and that one can see a single unifying Antichrist figure with the proper exegetical methods if one looks at the books of [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] and [[Book of Revelation|Revelations]].<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist| url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm| publisher=New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia}}</ref> So while there is a spirit of antichrist, there is also one Antichrist who is to come.

The Antichrist is often associated with, and in some interpretations considered equivalent to, ''the Beast'' of Revelation or the ''Man of Sin'' referenced in II Thessalonians 2:3.

==Islam==
[[Islamic]] theology also teaches of an antichrist-like figure known as Dajjal<ref>{{cite web| title=Who is the evil Dajjal (the "anti-Christ")? - from ''Signs of Qiyamah''| url=http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/masdaj.html| author=Mohammed Ali Ibn Zubair Ali}}</ref>

==America as the Seat of Antichrist==
America as the "Seat of Antichrist" ''ipso facto'' the leader of the West, namely, the President of the United States, as the Antichrist, with his nation as the ultimate Beast Nation or Babylon the Great - the great end times' commercial citadel spoken of in Revelation 18:1-24, has increasingly become the topic of conversation around the prophetic tables, not only in America, but increasingly throughout the world. A simple search for "Obama as the Antichrist" will generate scores of blogs, books, magazine articles, etc. America's fascination of this elusive, but ever-forecasted personage to appear in the "Latter Days" (according to Christians who hold to a Futurism eschatolog)<ref>{{cite web| title=Futurism (Christian eschatology)| url=http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Futurism_(Christian_eschatology)| publisher=Absolute Astronomy.com}}</ref> appears to be an integral part of Americana.

The seat of Antichrist as the USA is not a new interpretation among Christians, even among those who profess no faith. The United States in Bible Prophecy as the two-horned beast in Revelation 13:11-17 (i.e., the second beast of Revelation 13:1 who supports ''the Beast'' (i.e., the Antichrist) was propounded in 1859 by Frances Rolleston who authored a work titled ''Notes on the Apocalypse, as Explained by the Hebrew Scriptures: The Place in Prophecy of America and Australia Being Pointed Out''.<ref>{{cite web| title=Notes on the Apocalypse, as Explained by the Hebrew Scriptures: the Place in Prophecy of America and Australia Being Pointed Outurl| url=http://www.books.google.com/books?id=IXoaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1293&lpg=PA1293&dq=Frances+Rolleston+The+Place+in+Prophecy+of+America+and+Australia+Being+Pointed+Out&source=bl&ots=ziK45_MuIm&sig=qG5DgNL7ag6fMQ4K5IHBaC4h94U&hl=en&ei=KKrFScveGZmMsQPi9dkk&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1294,M1| publisher=Rivingtons, London 1858}}</ref> [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] expositor Uriah Smith in 1884 authored a text entitled ''The United States in the Light of Prophecy; or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17''<ref>{{cite web| title=The United States in the Light of Prophecy; or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17| url=http://www.books.google.com/books?id=0dziN9QI3SgC&dq=The+United+States+in+the+Light+of+Prophecy%3B+or,+An+Exposition+of+Rev.+13:11-17&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6-CGmRJvUX&sig=iD-5yIDPNhHfMz9trznrpc2W9AI&hl=en&ei=POHFSeOwDIKqsAPK18X9Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result| author|Uriah Smith}}</ref> Smith was insistent that America was the beast of Revelation 13:11-17. However, it was not until 1968 when Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, Sr. Pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago, Illinois, who suggested that the USA was Babylon the Great.<ref>{{cite web| title=U.S. in Bible Prophecy| url=http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:tN8J-JOJDS8J:www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/specol/news/fundamentalism/+U.S.+in+Bible+Prophecy+Logsdon+Armageddon+Books&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us| author=S. Franklin Logsdon, Sr. Pastor, Moody Church, Chicago, Illinois| publisher=Zondervan, 1968, pp. 59-60, ISBN-10:0974476498}}</ref> Jack Van Impe<ref>{{cite web| title=Jack Van Impe Ministries International| url=http://www.jvim.com/}}</ref> in ''The Great Escape''<ref>{{cite web| title=The Great Escape| url=http://www.e316.com/Great-Escape-Jack-Van-Impe/0849940737.htm| author=Jack Van Impe| publisher=Word, Nashville: Nashville, 1998, pp. 206-7, ISBN: 0849940737}}</ref> indicts America as the fulfillment of Jeremiah 50-51<ref>{{cite web| title=Jeremiah 50-51| url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2050-51%20;&version=50;| publisher=New King James Bible}}</ref> and Revelation 18:1-24. In one of the more exhaustive indictments against America as the seat of Antichrist, R. A. Coombes, in ''America, the Babylon: America’s Destiny Foretold in Biblical Prophecy''<ref>{{cite web| title=America the Babylon| url=http://www.americathebabylon.com/| author=R. A. Coombes| publisher=Real Publishing, Liberty, 1998; especially pp. 55-58 and 182-86, ISBN 1-890622-33-8}}</ref> presents thirty-three identifying markers which he claims identify America as the Babylon of the End Times, the seat of Antichrist; also, Coombes lists sixty-six points in another segment of his text (pp. 182-86) in which New York City is the perfect bastion of Babylon the Great.

Mark Hitchcock, in his 2009 text, ''The Late Great United States, What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days''<ref>{{cite web| title=The Late Great United States, What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days| url=http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781601421401| author=Mark Hitchcock| publisher=Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, CO, 2009, pp. 17-21, ISBN 978-1-60142-140-1}}</ref> rejects the eschatologists who suggest that America is ''Mystery, Babylon the Great'' (Revelation 17:5) and claims, instead, that modern-day [[Iraq]] is the literal Babylon the Great of the latter days (pp. 17-21). Scores of authors now flood the American apocalyptic marketplace with America’s role in Bible prophecy and most tie in the final Antichrist as the leader of that proposition.<ref>{{cite web| title=America in Prophecy - Contemporary American authors address America in Bible Prophecy| url=http://www.armageddonbooks.com/america.html}}</ref> Those Evangelicals who dispute America’s role as the Babylon of the Last Days, and as the seat of Antichrist, have been resisted by the likes of John Walvoord<ref>{{cite web| title=Walvoord| url=http://www.walvoordhistory.com/John%20F.%20Walvoord.html| author=Scott Anthony Walvoord}}</ref> of Dallas Theological Seminary<ref>{{cite web| title=Dallas Theological Seminary (Home Page)| url=http://www.dts.edu/}}</ref>, R. L. Hymers, Jr. of the Los Angeles Baptist Tabernacle.<ref>{{cite web| title=The Fall of America in Bible Prophecy| url=http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/2008/102608PM_AmericaInProphecy.html| author=R. L. Hymers of the Los Angeles Baptist Tabernacle}}</ref> and Tim LaHaye<ref>{{cite web| title=the Coming Peace in the Middle East| url=https://timlahaye.com/| publisher=Tim LaHaye Ministries}}</ref> of the famed ''[[Left Behind]] Series''.

In his e-book ''Antichrist - Reflections on the Desolator''<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist - Reflections on the Desolator| url=http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/antichrist_reflections_on_the_desolator/antichrist_intro.htm| author=Doug Krieger| publisher=The Tribulation Network}}</ref> Doug Krieger asserts that The Antichrist is not a Jew, the Pope, Islam nor a New-Age figure. Antichrist will be (according to Krieger) the leader of the West and the "protector of the Jews in a regathered Israel" - it is this figure who will make a "defense pact" to defend Israel's majority for seven years but, like other Biblical Futurists, will break his covenant with Israel and declare himself as "God, in the temple of God" (II Thessalonians 2:4). Also, Antichrist receives the Biblical entitlement of ''the Beast'' in the middle of Daniel's final 70th Week. This is accomplished when Antichrist receives "a wound in his head" - his body will then be entered into by Satan himself who will parody the resurrection of Jesus; thereafter, he is entitled ''the Beast''. Therefore, [[Satan]] will not only desecrate a rebuilt [[Third Temple]] by declaring himself as God in the Temple of God but he will desecrate the Antichrist's body (i.e., the "temple of man") and, as "Satan entered into [[Judas]]" to betray Jesus, he will enter into Antichrist - both Judas and Antichrist are entitled ''The Son of Perdition'' (John 17:12; II Thessalonians 2:3).

==Titles of the Antichrist==

Arthur Pink<ref>{{cite web| title=Arthur Walkington Pink's Archive| url=http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm| publisher=Providence Baptist Ministries}}</ref> (See: ''The Antichrist''<ref>{{cite web| title=the Antichrist| url=http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/antichrist.htm| author=Arthur Pink| publisher=Providence Baptist Ministries}}</ref>) and Doug Krieger,<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist, Reflections on the Desolator| author=Doug Krieger| url=http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/antichrist_reflections_on_the_desolator/antichrist_intro.htm| publisher=The Tribulation Network}}</ref> as well as many, especially Premillenial<ref>{{cite web| title=What is premillennialism?| url=http://www.gotquestions.org/premillennialism.html| publisher=gotQuestions?org}}</ref> Evangelicals,<ref>{{cite web| title=What is Evangelicalism?| url=http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelicalism.html| publisher=gotQuestions?org}}</ref> extrapolate titles of the [[End Times]] Antichrist from both Testaments of the Bible; to name but a few:

1. The Antichrist- {{bibleverse|I|John|2:22|NKJV}}

2. The Man of Sin – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:3|NKJV}}

3. The Lawless One – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:9|NKJV}}

4. The Beast – {{bibleverse||Rev.|11:7|NKJV}}

5. The Bloody and Deceitful Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|5:6|NKJV}}

6. The Wicked One – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:8|NKJV}}

7. The Man of the Earth – {{bibleverse||Psalm|10:18|NKJV}}

8. The Mighty Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|52:1|NKJV}}

9. The Enemy – {{bibleverse||Psalm|55:3|NKJV}}

10.The Adversary – {{bibleverse||Psalm|74:8-10|NKJV}}

11.The Head Over Many Countries – {{bibleverse||Psalm|110:6|NKJV}}

12.The Violent Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|140:1|NKJV}}

13.The Assyrian – {{bibleverse||Isa.|10:5-12|NKJV}}

14.The King of Babylon – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:4|NKJV}}

15.The Son of the Morning – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:12|NKJV}}

16.The Abominable Branch – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:19|NKJV}}

17.The Spoiler – {{bibleverse||Isa.|16:4|NKJV}}

18.The Nail – {{bibleverse||Isa.|22:25|NKJV}}

19.The Branch of the Terrible Ones – {{bibleverse||Ezk.|21:25-27|NKJV}}

20.The King of Tyre – {{bibleverse||Ezk.|28:12|NKJV}}

21.The Little (i.e., "Younger") Horn – {{bibleverse||Daniel|7:8|NKJV}}

22.The Head Over Many Countries- {{bibleverse||Psalm|110:6|NKJV}}

23.The Coming Prince – {{bibleverse||Dan.|9:26|NKJV}}

24.The Vile (or Despicable) Person – {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:21|NKJV}}

25.The Willful King – {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:3|NKJV}} and {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:36|NKJV}}

26.The Idol Shepherd – {{bibleverse||Zech.|11:16-17|NKJV}}

27.The Angel of the Bottomless Pit – {{bibleverse||Rev.|9:11|NKJV}}

28.The Son of Perdition – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:3|NKJV}}

29.The Desolator – {{bibleverse||Daniel|9:27|NKJV}}

30.The [[Abomination of Desolation]] – {{bibleverse||Daniel|11:31|NKJV}} and {{bibleverse||Daniel|12:11|NKJV}}

31.God of Fortresses – {{bibleverse||Daniel|11:38|NKJV}}

==See Also==
* [[2300 Day Prophecy of Daniel 8]]
* [[Abomination of Desolation]]
* [[Apocalypse]]
* [[Armageddon]]
* [[Book of Daniel]]
* [[Book of Revelation]]
* [[Eschatology]]
* [[End times]]
* [[Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse]]
* [[Last Judgment]]
* [[Millenarianism]]
* [[Oracle of Damascus]]
* [[Preterism]]
* [[Postmillennialism]]
* [[Rapture|The Rapture]]
* [[Third Temple]]
* [[Two Witnesses]]

==Resources==
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:New Testament]]
[[Category:Islam]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|3}}

Socialized medicine

2009-07-23T18:06:36Z

ATang: Removed eye-straining bold.

'''Socialized Medicine''' is [[health care]] as supplied by a [[monopolistic]] or heavily-[[subsidized]] and regulated [[universal health care]] State system.

[[Ronald Reagan]] said [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded]:

{{Cquote|One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren’t equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. }}

==Loss of personal incentive to find better service or products==

==Lack of competion in health care==

==Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments==

==Loss of personal income to the government==

==Loss of health care quality==

==Loss of privacy==

==Loss of liberty==

[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Socialism]]

Canada

2009-06-19T18:58:51Z

ATang: /* Cultural style */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largekly cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kidergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada score +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% )report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of sentors appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governer General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Political Conditions===
On February 6, 2006, Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's twenty-second Prime Minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. An admitted "policy specialist," Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. Prior to becoming Prime Minister, he sat as a Member of Parliament, including as Leader of the Opposition since 2002 when he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethics concerns, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ offers candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: improving accountability and ethics in government; lower taxes; fighting crime and urban violence; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with the Americas.

In Canada's political system, a key challenge for any federal government is balancing the conflicting interests of Canada's 10 provinces and 3 territories. Recognizing the advantages of a coordinated approach in dealing with the federal government, the provinces and territories created a Council of the Federation in 2003, with their leaders (Canada's first ministers) meeting regularly in that forum to develop common positions. Prime Minister Harper met with the provincial premiers and territorial leaders formally on January 11, 2008 and on November 10, 2008.

Quebec, which represents 23% of the national population (and has a similar proportion of seats in the House of Commons), seeks to preserve its distinctive francophone nature, and is perceived by the less-populous western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. At least until January 2006's election of Albertan Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for sovereignty appears to be on the wane in Quebec, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtfphBDp-w&feature=related Canadian National Anthem with Lyrics]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-06-19T18:31:02Z

ATang:

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largekly cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than neighboring states of the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States's "melting pot".<ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kidergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada score +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% )report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of sentors appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governer General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Political Conditions===
On February 6, 2006, Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada's twenty-second Prime Minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. An admitted "policy specialist," Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. Prior to becoming Prime Minister, he sat as a Member of Parliament, including as Leader of the Opposition since 2002 when he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethics concerns, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ offers candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: improving accountability and ethics in government; lower taxes; fighting crime and urban violence; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with the Americas.

In Canada's political system, a key challenge for any federal government is balancing the conflicting interests of Canada's 10 provinces and 3 territories. Recognizing the advantages of a coordinated approach in dealing with the federal government, the provinces and territories created a Council of the Federation in 2003, with their leaders (Canada's first ministers) meeting regularly in that forum to develop common positions. Prime Minister Harper met with the provincial premiers and territorial leaders formally on January 11, 2008 and on November 10, 2008.

Quebec, which represents 23% of the national population (and has a similar proportion of seats in the House of Commons), seeks to preserve its distinctive francophone nature, and is perceived by the less-populous western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. At least until January 2006's election of Albertan Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for sovereignty appears to be on the wane in Quebec, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec secession movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.
==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtfphBDp-w&feature=related Canadian National Anthem with Lyrics]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

HPV vaccine

2009-06-17T19:43:14Z

ATang: /* Effectiveness */ National Cancer Institute does not claim 100% effectiveness.

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

An effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

HPV vaccine

2009-06-17T19:40:27Z

ATang: /* Effectiveness */ Article shouldn't be an opinion piece. (Plus one can say that deaths after HPV vaccine is not related - correlation does not imply causation)

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

A 100% effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

HPV vaccine

2009-06-17T19:35:02Z

ATang: /* Side Effects and Adverse Reactions */ Changed link to primary source from CDC

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV, but correlation is not necessarily causation.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

A 100% effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

HPV vaccine

2009-06-17T19:32:11Z

ATang: /* Side Effects and Adverse Reactions */

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref> CNN.com: Should parents worry about HPV vaccine?, July 7, 2008 [http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/07/cervical.cancer.vaccine/index.html]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV, but correlation is not necessarily causation.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

A 100% effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

HPV vaccine

2009-06-17T19:26:45Z

ATang: Cited reference does not mention death.

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of June 30, 2008, there have been 9,749 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including twenty-one deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the first fifteen deaths, ten were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref> CNN.com: Should parents worry about HPV vaccine?, July 7, 2008 [http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/07/cervical.cancer.vaccine/index.html]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV, but correlation is not necessarily causation.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

A 100% effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

Vaccine

2009-06-17T15:36:51Z

ATang: /* Published Adverse Reaction Rates */

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref>
*There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>
*The Measles, Mumps, Rubbela (MMR) vaccine has a 25% chance of causing [[arthralgia]] (joint pain) and 10% chance of causing [[arthritis]]-like symptoms in women who are past puberty. This pain and stiffness begins 1-3 weeks after vaccination, persisting for 1 day to 3 weeks.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm]</ref>
*The MMR vaccine has a .00484% chance of causing [[thrombocytopenia]]. However, the measles and rubella both have much higher chances of causing thrombocytopenia.<ref>[http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/84/3/227 E Miller et al., Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine in Archives of Disease In Childhood, 84:227-229]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and usually not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

As of February 2008, the CDC noted that "fewer than 100 measles cases are now reported annually in the United States and virtually all of those are linked to imported cases" in which someone is infected during overseas travel. The USA maintains herd immunity for measles, even in states where it is easy to opt out of vaccination requirements.<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref> Measles can be serious; according to an article in The Times, "About one in every 15 children has complications that can include meningitis, pneumonia, fits, encephalitis (swelling of the brain), blindness and brain damage."<ref>The Sunday Times, ''How the MMR scare led to the return of measles'', February 8, 2009[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683687.ece]</ref> In the England and Wales, there were 1,348 cases of measles in 2008; two children died of the disease. <ref>The Sunday Times, ''MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism'', by Brian Deer, February 8, 2009 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece]</ref>

The CDC notes that when a measles outbreak occurs, the cost to taxpayers can be substantial. Public health responsibilities include "identification of cases, isolation of patients and vaccination, administration of [[immune globulin]], and voluntary quarantine of contacts who have no evidence of measles immunity...In Iowa, the public health response to one imported measles case cost approximately $150,000."<ref>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, ''Outbreak of Measles --- San Diego, California, January--February 2008'', February 29, 2008 [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

Other diseases besides the measles have also started not only to reappear but also to kill babies. Hib ([[Haemophilus influenzae]] type B) recently killed an infant in Minnesota by causing meningitis in the baby. The child who died had not been vaccinated. Two others who had been either partially vaccinated, but not fully protected, or had an immune deficiency were seriously sickened. The vaccine for Hib is less than twenty years old, but this is the first death due to the disease in the state of Minnesota since the vaccine was introduced.<ref>[http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child Hib Outbreak Kills Unvaccinated Child]</ref>

===Herd Immunity in Britain===
Due to a decrease in vaccination, measles has become endemic in Britain. This means that measles does not need to be brought in by travelers, but instead has a large enough base of unvaccinated individuals for it to continuously spread inside the country. In London, only 71 percent of children receive the first dose of the vaccine and only 51 percent the second dose. Due to this decline, there were 461 cases in Britain in the first half of 2008. These cases have had tragic consequences, with the death of a 17 year old reported in 2008.<ref>[http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2008/07/measles-endemic-in-britain-official.html Health Direct NHS watch blog]</ref> This immunization failure may be in part due to Britain's nationalized health care system, which focuses more on cutting costs than saving lives.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4003733.ece New antibiotics might help to fight hospital infections; but that would cost us money]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Common Misconceptions Surrounding Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of certain high-profile figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence), certain parties continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link. It has recently come to light that the original study that began the controversy over the safety of vaccines was entirely falsified.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece MMR Doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on Autism]</ref>

Many people assume that official vaccine recommendations are based on recommendations of independent panels of experts after reviewing risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses. They are not. The government panels are dominated by vaccine industry representatives and they have no consumer representatives. The meetings are not open to the public. They do not usually do much analysis, and tend to recommend whatever vaccines are available.

Misinformed rumors about vaccines do not happen only in the developed world. The world wide polio eradication came to a halt in 2003 when Muslim Imams in Nigeria began spreading rumors that the vaccines would give boys HIV and sterilize girls. The vaccine was banned for over a year in the country. The ban has since been lifted, but the vaccination rate remains low.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Vaccine

2009-06-17T15:36:11Z

ATang: /* Adverse Events */ Corrected inconsistencies between article and referenced source

[[Image:Vaccine.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Avian flu]] vaccine development]]
A '''vaccine''' is an injection of a specialized [[protein]] designed to create an immunity to a particular disease (see [[antigen]]). The primary mechanism that a body uses to identify infections is a protein molecule called an [[antibody]]. The ingredients of vaccines used today are available from the [[CDC]].<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf</ref>

Traditionally a few highly tested vaccines were mandatory for children to protect against deadly or severe diseases, such as [[smallpox]] and [[polio]]. In the 1990s, vaccine manufacturers began introducing and persuading states to require numerous additional vaccines for non-deadly and even sexually transmitted diseases. About one-third of the states have philosophical exemptions entitling parents to decline the vaccines; 48 out of 50 states have religious exemptions; all states have medical exemptions, but they are hardest to obtain.<ref>http://www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm</ref>

Since the adoption of mass vaccination programmes, many diseases have been curbed. [[Smallpox]], a deadly disease responsible for the deaths of millions, has been mostly eliminated through vaccination. Responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths worldwide in the 20th century, effective vaccination programs of the 19th and 20th century were effective at curbing the disease, and in 1979 the World Health Organization declared smallpox to be eradicated.

[[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflicted such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it practically eradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]].

If the body has a particular antibody for a particular disease it can identify the infection early on and the [[immune system]] can destroy it. Vaccines work by exposing the body to a form of the disease in such a way that it will not cause illness but allow antibodies to develop. This confers a level of immunity to the organism vaccinated.<ref>http://www.howstuffworks.com/immune-system7.htm How stuff works: Antibodies</ref>

There are four major types of vaccines and they are differentiated by what antigen is used. Live attenuated vaccines are created from the actual disease in question, however before injection the [[pathogen]] is [[attenuated]] (weakened) by growing successive generations of lines in poor nutrient conditions. It is possible for these vaccines to still cause an infection. Inactivated vaccines are created from pathogens that have been killed, usually with the use of a preservative [[formaldehyde]]. Toxoid vaccines are created by using toxins produced by the pathogen, before injection these toxins are exposed to heat and chemicals that eliminate their effect, [[antibodies]] will still be produced to these deactivated toxins. Finally, component vaccines use pieces of the pathogen in the injection. These pieces often of identifying protein segments that allow antibodies to be produced.<ref>http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4866,00.html The Main Types of Vaccine </ref>

==Adverse Events==
Only live attenuated vaccines can still cause infection. All vaccines can cause illness, but this is commonly a hypersensitivity reaction (similar to an allergic response), not due to the disease itself. Very rarely a serious disease known as [[eczema vaccinatum]] can emerge. Vaccines that use pieces of pathogens often use a [[carrier virus]] in the injection. Those with very weak immune systems that are exposed to such a vaccine can become infected with the carrier virus and develop [[eczema]]. A recent case of this was reported in the United States after a military man was vaccinated with small pox and his two year old son became ill. <ref> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183349/soldier_infects_toddler_son_with_lifethreatening.html AP article on eczema vaccinatum </ref>

A number of vaccination reactions are deemed serious enough to contraindicate further vaccinations of the same type. These include extensive swelling and redness at the injection site, prolonged fever, [[bronchospasm]] and laryngeal [[edema]](narrowing of the airways causing difficulty in breathing), and collapse/seizures with or without unconsciousness and/or encephalitis.<ref>[http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=2067071044 General Practice Notebook - vaccine reactions]</ref>

===Published Adverse Reaction Rates===
*The Hepatitis B Vaccine (HBV) has a .000167% chance of causing [[anaphylaxis]] upon vaccination.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm]</ref>
*There is no correlation between the HBV and multiple sclerosis.<ref>[http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccinenews.htm]</ref>
*The Measles, Mumps, Rubbela (MMR) vaccine has a 25% chance of causing [[arthralgia]] (joint pain) in women who are past puberty, and 10% chance of causing [[arthritis]]-like symptoms. This pain and stiffness begins 1-3 weeks after vaccination, persisting for 1 day to 3 weeks.<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm]</ref>
*The MMR vaccine has a .00484% chance of causing [[thrombocytopenia]]. However, the measles and rubella both have much higher chances of causing thrombocytopenia.<ref>[http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/84/3/227 E Miller et al., Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine in Archives of Disease In Childhood, 84:227-229]</ref>

==Influenza Vaccine==

The flu vaccine is an example of modern vaccination. Due to the change in [[allele]] frequency over time in the population of the influenza virus, new influenza vaccines are created each year. According to the [http://www.cdc.gov/ CDC] <ref>"Inactivated Influenza Vaccine, What you need to know," a publication of the Center for Disease Control, 2006. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/VIS/vis-flu.pdf</ref>,
<blockquote>
Influenza viruses are always changing. Therefore, influenza vaccines are updated every year, and an annual vaccination is recommended.
</blockquote>
Since production of the vaccine must begin many months before the influenza season starts models of the population genetics of the virus must be produced. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n3/full/nrd1988.html Influenza vaccines </ref> The success of vaccinations programs is dependent on the accuracy of these predictions.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030324/full/030324-5.html Flu changes modeled </ref> The [[National Institute of Health]] recently assigned $26 million dollars to establish a research center to better develop molecular models of influenza. <ref> http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-8024.html $26 million NIH contract to establish new flu/bird flu Center of Excellence </ref>

==Herd immunity and mandatory vaccination==
A concept in vaccine planning is "[[herd immunity]]". When a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, those within the population who are not vaccinated are protected from the disease. If 90 percent of a population is immune, then the chances that a carrier of the disease will come into contact with a non-immune member of the population (or "herd") is low. <ref>http://www.mathepi.com/maindir/herd.html The mathematics of herd immunity</ref>. Herd immunity is the goal of most vaccination programs as it is the point where a disease can start to be eliminated altogether from a population.

For example, in 1962 Japan instituted mandatory vaccination against influenza in school children. This continued until 1987 when the program was changed to optional; it was abandoned in 1994. Approximately 85 percent of children were estimated to have been vaccinated.<ref>{{hnb|Glezen|2004}}</ref> Several studies examined the mortality rates due to influenza during this period of time and revealed that the death rates due to influenza in all population groups was drastically decreased, including older adult populations. Since there was no increased rate of vaccination in these populations, the decreased mortality was caused by herd immunity effects of vaccinating so many children. <ref>http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Vaccine-Weekly/2001-04-11/200104113335VW.html Mandatory Vaccination of Japanese Schoolchildren Demonstrates "Herd Immunity" </ref> Many researchers have written that this and other evidence argues strongly for mandatory vaccination programs world wide as a means of controlling many diseases and preventing a [[pandemic]].<ref> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1360502 Herd Immunity</ref>

The USA has mandatory vaccination according to an official CDC schedule. Enforcement is left to the states. Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some states make it very easy to opt out of vaccines, while other states strictly enforce compliance for school attendance. The difference in vaccination rates between these states is actually very slight, and usually not nearly enough to affect herd immunity.

As of February 2008, the CDC noted that "fewer than 100 measles cases are now reported annually in the United States and virtually all of those are linked to imported cases" in which someone is infected during overseas travel. The USA maintains herd immunity for measles, even in states where it is easy to opt out of vaccination requirements.<ref> [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref> Measles can be serious; according to an article in The Times, "About one in every 15 children has complications that can include meningitis, pneumonia, fits, encephalitis (swelling of the brain), blindness and brain damage."<ref>The Sunday Times, ''How the MMR scare led to the return of measles'', February 8, 2009[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683687.ece]</ref> In the England and Wales, there were 1,348 cases of measles in 2008; two children died of the disease. <ref>The Sunday Times, ''MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism'', by Brian Deer, February 8, 2009 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece]</ref>

The CDC notes that when a measles outbreak occurs, the cost to taxpayers can be substantial. Public health responsibilities include "identification of cases, isolation of patients and vaccination, administration of [[immune globulin]], and voluntary quarantine of contacts who have no evidence of measles immunity...In Iowa, the public health response to one imported measles case cost approximately $150,000."<ref>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, ''Outbreak of Measles --- San Diego, California, January--February 2008'', February 29, 2008 [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5708a3.htm]</ref>

Other diseases besides the measles have also started not only to reappear but also to kill babies. Hib ([[Haemophilus influenzae]] type B) recently killed an infant in Minnesota by causing meningitis in the baby. The child who died had not been vaccinated. Two others who had been either partially vaccinated, but not fully protected, or had an immune deficiency were seriously sickened. The vaccine for Hib is less than twenty years old, but this is the first death due to the disease in the state of Minnesota since the vaccine was introduced.<ref>[http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child Hib Outbreak Kills Unvaccinated Child]</ref>

===Herd Immunity in Britain===
Due to a decrease in vaccination, measles has become endemic in Britain. This means that measles does not need to be brought in by travelers, but instead has a large enough base of unvaccinated individuals for it to continuously spread inside the country. In London, only 71 percent of children receive the first dose of the vaccine and only 51 percent the second dose. Due to this decline, there were 461 cases in Britain in the first half of 2008. These cases have had tragic consequences, with the death of a 17 year old reported in 2008.<ref>[http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2008/07/measles-endemic-in-britain-official.html Health Direct NHS watch blog]</ref> This immunization failure may be in part due to Britain's nationalized health care system, which focuses more on cutting costs than saving lives.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4003733.ece New antibiotics might help to fight hospital infections; but that would cost us money]</ref>

== Adverse Reactions ==
{{See also|Vaccine Injury Compensation Program|Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System}}
Vaccines are not completely harmless, and many have a significant morbidity and mortality associated with them. Postvaccinial encephalitis is a known hazard of [[smallpox]] vaccine, for example. A recently-introduced vaccine against [[human papilloma virus]], the [[causative agent]] of [[cancer]] of the [[uterus|uterine]] [[cervix]], has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration.<ref name=GardasilMM>Cockcroft, Lucy, "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/njab129.xml Cervical cancer drug Gardasil linked to deaths]," ''[[London]] Daily Telegraph'', October 29, 2007. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>

Bulging or swollen [[fontanelle]]s have been linked with many vaccines commonly given to infants, such as the [[diptheria]]-[[tetanus]] (DPT) vaccine. Many families, out of concern for their child's health, have sought legal justice for the potential health damage.<ref>http://legaljustice4john.com/fontanellebulging.htm</ref>

== Common Misconceptions Surrounding Vaccines ==
Despite the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/time-for-cdc-to-come-clea_b_16550.html claims] of certain high-profile figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,<ref>more can be found [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html here]</ref> there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism.<ref>[http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=09000064807be2e8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf .pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.neurodiversity.com/fda_comed_cp_response09-26-06.pdf .pdf]</ref> Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' [[deceit|deceitful]] behavior (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence), certain parties continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link. It has recently come to light that the original study that began the controversy over the safety of vaccines was entirely falsified.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece MMR Doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on Autism]</ref>

Many people assume that official vaccine recommendations are based on recommendations of independent panels of experts after reviewing risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses. They are not. The government panels are dominated by vaccine industry representatives and they have no consumer representatives. The meetings are not open to the public. They do not usually do much analysis, and tend to recommend whatever vaccines are available.

Misinformed rumors about vaccines do not happen only in the developed world. The world wide polio eradication came to a halt in 2003 when Muslim Imams in Nigeria began spreading rumors that the vaccines would give boys HIV and sterilize girls. The vaccine was banned for over a year in the country. The ban has since been lifted, but the vaccination rate remains low.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Balbier
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Year = 1999
| Date = 1999-09-28
| Title = Statement on National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program by Thomas E. Balbier, Jr.
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990928b.html
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Glezen
| Given = W. Paul
| Year = 2004
| Title = Control of Influenza
| volume = 31(1)
| pages = 39-41
| Publisher = Texas Heart Institute Journal
| URL = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387431
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pear
| Given = Robert
| Year = 2008
| Date = 2008-01-21
| Title = Threats and Responses: Leagal Risks; For Victims of Vaccine, Winning Case Will Be Hard
| Publisher = [[The New York Times]]
| URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DC1E3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Justice
| Given = USDOJ
| Year = 2000
| Date = 2000-11-27
| Title = About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2008
| Title = Filing a Claim with the VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/filing_claim.htm
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = United States Department of Health and Human Services
| Given = HRSA
| Year = 2007
| Date = 2007-04-20
| Title = National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) About VICP
| Publisher = United States Government
| URL = http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
}} retrieved on 2008-01-21



== See also ==
*[[HPV vaccine]]
*[[Vaccine Injury Compensation Program]]
*[[Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.909shot.com/ National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)], a non-profit anti-vaccination organization
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/uploads/Compare_Risks.pdf Compare the Risks], A PDF detailing the risks between vaccination and non-vaccination
*[http://www.site.stopjenny.com/Home.html Stop Jenny McCarthy], A site devoted to fighting vaccine misinformation, contains many vaccine related resources.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers

2008-09-07T02:58:09Z

ATang: /* Number 6? */

4 and 5 are too vague to be helpful. They are not concepts or principles, and I suggest replacing them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:As a teacher I would disagree. Perhaps they are not worded well, but teaching teens how to make decisions, and how to evalulate information in this world is critical to their becoming successful and moral adults. This site is a perfect example. Why is the information on this site valuable? We state that Wiki is biased, but how do we teach teens to figure that out for themselves? How do we teach teens the tools to say "ah, sex is not for me", rather than just parrot us. When teens parrot, they only know the answers to the question we provided. But when we teach them how to look at evidence with a critical eye, and say "fine so science says X, but how do we know it is true or not" - we do our kids in our schools a disservice. Critical thinking seems to be core here. So teaching that skill is far more important than just teaching what you or I or some other adult has found using "critical thinking". That's my 02 cents, anyhow. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Six is WONDERFUL. Something I wish I were more aware of as I watch my "babies" turn 9 and 6. gak!--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:22, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

4 through 7 are ineffective or worse. 4 and 5 can be interpreted any way anyone likes (making them useless), and 6 and 7 are not going to persuade any teenagers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:And 1-3 ''will'' persuade any teenagers? I know teenagers, it's hard to get them away from the tellie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I doubt you've taught 145 teenagers, as I have. Teaching the meaning of [[opportunity cost]] is effective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've taught roughly a thousand. I agree that cost-of-opportunity is a useful concept to teach them. I question, however, the addition of "destructive" to the point about values. Surely values can also have constructive effects? Teaching them to avoid destructive values is only half of the equation. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: You've taught about a thousand teenagers??? I bet quite a few of them ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed, after adopting [[Hollywood values]]. Tell them beforehand and the disastrous outcomes are less likely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Yes, Andy, I've taught about a thousand teenagers. Is that really so surprising? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:13, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If so, Benp, then please tell us how many ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed. Hundreds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: To the best of my knowledge, not one has been imprisoned. I can think of a few who have unfortunately been foolish enough to cultivate addictions (mainly to tobacco.) I doubt that if any of them has cultivated addictions stronger than that, they'd make that knowledge public; likewise, I'm not in a position to say how many of them have suffered from depression in the time since I taught them. I am neither their confessor nor their psychiatrist, and while I do have a degree in psychology, it's only a BA; as such, speculations would be irresponsible of me. I do know that there have been no suicides; one former student died, but that was a tragic accident.

::::::: In general, though, I've been blessed with well-adjusted and optimistic students and supportive parents, and I'm fortunate enough to teach in a well-ranked and well-to-do suburban school in a conservative district. I suspect that the story would be much different if I were teaching in an inner-city school. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Most teens I've met (and I'll concede that I haven't yet taught 145), don't ''care'' about opportunity cost, (the same reason you objected to 6-7). That said, I agree that opportunity cost is a great life lesson, but also that some things are more important than money, (spending time with family even though you can be earning $$$). [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:43, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: They care once it's explained to them. But most people won't explain [[opportunity cost]] to young people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

There are three kinds of teachers: those who can count, and those who can't. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:There are 10 kinds: those who understand binary, and those who don't. ;) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:36, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::I stand corrected, sitting right here! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

What about teaching '''trust''' as a positive value, rather than encouraging a negative attitude of expecting deceit? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:Trust of one's superiors can be good, when the superiors merit that trust. Overlooking evil in proven liars is no virtue, though.

:We don't '''expect''' other people to deceive us, but "he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" is a good description of Satan. [[Fred Schwarz]] wrote a book about "trusting" the [[Communists]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the text as it stands is "deceit exists far more than you expect", so that ''is'' saying that we ''should'' expect deceit, & in fact we should expect it more than we already do. If a generation of young people is brought up with this outlook, it will result in a generation of cynical and distrusting adults, who may be hesitant to take chances, make commitments or form relationships for fear that they will be let down or are being deceived. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:14, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Liberal Notion that Authority is necessarily Wrong ==
Well the liberals are correct on this one. Some things are better than others, while still being less than perfect. As there is only one truth this truth would be perfect. A claim to not being wrong is a claim to perfection. I think we can all agree that any earthly authority is necessarily less than perfect. Thus it is necessarily not true, thus it is necessarily wrong. It might be spectacularly good, it might be very valuable but there is still room for improvement.
That improvement in an authority can only arise through criticism (which may be self-criticism) of the authority. Many authorities have not just avoided being good but have been positively bad. It is essential that children are taught to question and not blindly obey "authority", lest they obey bad instructions of authority later in life. If we do not teach children to question we run the risk of happy, drug free, intelligent people pushing other people into gas chambers because they were always taught at school to do what they were told without question. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Toffers, you are the incorrigible [[Liberal]]. How you can claim that authority is ''neccesarily'' wrong, I do not know. We [[Conservative]]s hold that freedom of thought is essential: seek truth from facts, not leftist dogma, and challenge authority when it is seen to be in error. But authority as neccesarily, as intrinsically a Bad Thing? No! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I don't see much freedom of thought in this list - just teaching a kid a series of absolutes and prohibitions. The entries on teaching them to think for themself, evaluate situations and come to their own decisions were deleted. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::They are not prohibitions, they are freedoms. Freedom from disease, from pre-marital pregnancy, from ruined education and ambition, from addiction, crime and untimely death. Discipline, and self-discipline, is the doorway to freedom and should be embraced. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, but if freedom of thought is to be embraced, then surely this is one of the most important things to teach, allowing the young person to think for themself. The list as it stands has quite an authoritarian, commanding look to it. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:21, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::The problem is that far too many people think of freedom as a privilege or an entitlement--not a stern responsibility and duty. It most manifestly is. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Better that than 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::Not necessarily a bad thing - I did specifically say that it might be "spectacularly good" - but it must ''necessarily'' have something wrong with it. "Good" and "bad" is a matter of gradient, "right" and "wrong" are binary, the two only meet at "perfection". The problem with authority is that its a good place to hide from ''responsibility''. "Why did you do that?", "Because x told me to" nicely shifts the blame onto x. (I've just seen what you wrote above on self-discipline. From authority may come discipline, but it prevents ''self''-discipline)--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:27, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You need to learn discipline before you can discipline yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:31, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::What's the difference between freedom of thought and 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!'? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is the distinction between liberty and licence. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I find it interesting that somebody who holds freedom of thought to be essential is so keen to narrow the range of belief [[Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?|here]] at Conservapedia. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:10, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If you read my statements carefully, instead of just looking at the header and jumping to erroneous conclusions, you would see that I have no wish to narrow any field of debate, nor to advocate hatred of atheists (in fact, quite the reverse), but merely to enable Conservapedia to operate free from the overt and covert sabotage being carried out by those people. Were they able to debate properly, there would be no problem. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)
I agree with Bugler on this point; the idea of "questioning authority" has been perverted into the universal rejection of authority. Questioning authority is both valuable and necessary; had the Founding Fathers not questioned the authority of the King, we would not enjoy the freedoms we know today. The Founders were also well aware that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people required that the people take responsibility for holding government to task.

Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority. One leads to anarchy and self-worship; the other, to totalitarianism and repression. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:44, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'':"Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority."'' Agreed. But we have to be very careful not to conflate "question" with "reject". If you were teaching my son, told him something he disagreed with and he asked you "why's that?" I would expect you to have an answer. If that answer where "because I said so, I am the authority, you will not question that authority", well, you haven't given him much of an answer, you haven't taught him anything and you haven't done anything to equip him for life. I'm sure that you ''do'' allow kids to question you, and I sure that it gives you a great opportunity to impart your wisdom. When it is wisdom it has an answer to the question and doesn't need to rely on "authority".--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 13:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::No-one wants to stop children asking questions, and good answers help an enquiring mind to grow. But sometimes lines have to be drawn. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I'd suggest that two lines are between 1)speech/thought and action and 2)questioning/holding-to-account and dismissing out of hand. Both give reasonably clear divides between what you/society/the school should allow and where you/society/the school are perfectly entitled to dictate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I generally agree with [[freedom of thought]], but particularly when it comes to adults resisting government propaganda aimed at squelching their religion. Also, in education, I prefer to let my students come to their own conclusions - instead of mandating that they believe a certain way. I tell them the truth, and if I can't convince them of it, maybe I'm not a very good teacher.

But "one is not free to thirst while drinking". So it's not [[true freedom]] to cling to a lie; and I'm not helping you to be free if I stand by idly while you fool yourself. I can't '''make''' a horse drink, but I owe him nothing less than to lead him to water. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Ed, can you explain how #12 is not at odds with #8? In #12 you tell kids that they are responsible for their choices (correct), even if their choice was to listen to others in authority like their government (still correct). Yet in #8 you're telling them that constant questioning of authority is counter-productive and destructive. If you are responsible for the consequences of every decision you make, no matter whose advice you were following, how is it wrong not to always be questioning and evaluating that advice to make sure you can live with the consequences? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:03, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Voting Buttons ==
Would voting buttons be a good idea? My vote would go for "develop good habits", I like that one. After the "fun to decide" one - I wrote that, so obviously it's brilliant :) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:39, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:In Middle Earth, much of our behavior is governed by hobbits. It is therefore critical to consciously cultivate good hobbits, and to work to overcome bad hobbits. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::That's actually ''painful''. (But "good habits" and self-discipline is the reason Sam is the ''real'' hero of LOTR) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::And elf-discipline is what makes Legolas so great. X-( [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 18:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hobbits are the strongest of all. Try reading the ''preface'' of LOTR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Master of one's body==

The idea that each person is the master of their body is used by abortionists. They regard the "proper term" for an unborn child to be ''the fetus'' - whereas conservatives regard the proper term to be nine months.

Liberals argue that the unborn child is "not human" until it takes its first breath, or can survive on its own or some such nonsense like that. This is as stupid as Mary Shelley's old horror story, ''[[Frankenstein]]''. It takes a human mother (and father) to make a human baby, and the unborn child is human from the moment of its conception.

Moreover, no one is master of their own body to the extent that they may decide what to "do with it" without regard to their obligations to their parents, to God, to society, and so forth.

Don't go down this rabbit hole. Not in a "concepts for teenagers" list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:You have misinterpreted me entirely. I am not referring to abortion at all. I am referring to the conquest of bodily impulses. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:08, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Number 6?==

This one's a bit too much of a generalization, and contradicts #12. To pick an extreme example, what would most of the folks say here about the advice a young person gets if both parents are liberals or atheists? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:18, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh #6 sounds like a joke. That's basically saying "Parents are never wrong!". If someone actually takes this seriously and tells that to their kids, they'll have some real backlash when the kid grows a mind of their own. (Unless the purpose of this list is to prevent that, in which case... good luck) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 22:57, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers

2008-09-07T02:57:57Z

ATang: /* Number 6? */

4 and 5 are too vague to be helpful. They are not concepts or principles, and I suggest replacing them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:As a teacher I would disagree. Perhaps they are not worded well, but teaching teens how to make decisions, and how to evalulate information in this world is critical to their becoming successful and moral adults. This site is a perfect example. Why is the information on this site valuable? We state that Wiki is biased, but how do we teach teens to figure that out for themselves? How do we teach teens the tools to say "ah, sex is not for me", rather than just parrot us. When teens parrot, they only know the answers to the question we provided. But when we teach them how to look at evidence with a critical eye, and say "fine so science says X, but how do we know it is true or not" - we do our kids in our schools a disservice. Critical thinking seems to be core here. So teaching that skill is far more important than just teaching what you or I or some other adult has found using "critical thinking". That's my 02 cents, anyhow. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Six is WONDERFUL. Something I wish I were more aware of as I watch my "babies" turn 9 and 6. gak!--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:22, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

4 through 7 are ineffective or worse. 4 and 5 can be interpreted any way anyone likes (making them useless), and 6 and 7 are not going to persuade any teenagers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:And 1-3 ''will'' persuade any teenagers? I know teenagers, it's hard to get them away from the tellie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I doubt you've taught 145 teenagers, as I have. Teaching the meaning of [[opportunity cost]] is effective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I've taught roughly a thousand. I agree that cost-of-opportunity is a useful concept to teach them. I question, however, the addition of "destructive" to the point about values. Surely values can also have constructive effects? Teaching them to avoid destructive values is only half of the equation. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: You've taught about a thousand teenagers??? I bet quite a few of them ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed, after adopting [[Hollywood values]]. Tell them beforehand and the disastrous outcomes are less likely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Yes, Andy, I've taught about a thousand teenagers. Is that really so surprising? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:13, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If so, Benp, then please tell us how many ended up becoming addicted, imprisoned or depressed. Hundreds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: To the best of my knowledge, not one has been imprisoned. I can think of a few who have unfortunately been foolish enough to cultivate addictions (mainly to tobacco.) I doubt that if any of them has cultivated addictions stronger than that, they'd make that knowledge public; likewise, I'm not in a position to say how many of them have suffered from depression in the time since I taught them. I am neither their confessor nor their psychiatrist, and while I do have a degree in psychology, it's only a BA; as such, speculations would be irresponsible of me. I do know that there have been no suicides; one former student died, but that was a tragic accident.

::::::: In general, though, I've been blessed with well-adjusted and optimistic students and supportive parents, and I'm fortunate enough to teach in a well-ranked and well-to-do suburban school in a conservative district. I suspect that the story would be much different if I were teaching in an inner-city school. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Most teens I've met (and I'll concede that I haven't yet taught 145), don't ''care'' about opportunity cost, (the same reason you objected to 6-7). That said, I agree that opportunity cost is a great life lesson, but also that some things are more important than money, (spending time with family even though you can be earning $$$). [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:43, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: They care once it's explained to them. But most people won't explain [[opportunity cost]] to young people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

There are three kinds of teachers: those who can count, and those who can't. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:There are 10 kinds: those who understand binary, and those who don't. ;) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:36, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::I stand corrected, sitting right here! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

What about teaching '''trust''' as a positive value, rather than encouraging a negative attitude of expecting deceit? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:Trust of one's superiors can be good, when the superiors merit that trust. Overlooking evil in proven liars is no virtue, though.

:We don't '''expect''' other people to deceive us, but "he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" is a good description of Satan. [[Fred Schwarz]] wrote a book about "trusting" the [[Communists]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the text as it stands is "deceit exists far more than you expect", so that ''is'' saying that we ''should'' expect deceit, & in fact we should expect it more than we already do. If a generation of young people is brought up with this outlook, it will result in a generation of cynical and distrusting adults, who may be hesitant to take chances, make commitments or form relationships for fear that they will be let down or are being deceived. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:14, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== The Liberal Notion that Authority is necessarily Wrong ==
Well the liberals are correct on this one. Some things are better than others, while still being less than perfect. As there is only one truth this truth would be perfect. A claim to not being wrong is a claim to perfection. I think we can all agree that any earthly authority is necessarily less than perfect. Thus it is necessarily not true, thus it is necessarily wrong. It might be spectacularly good, it might be very valuable but there is still room for improvement.
That improvement in an authority can only arise through criticism (which may be self-criticism) of the authority. Many authorities have not just avoided being good but have been positively bad. It is essential that children are taught to question and not blindly obey "authority", lest they obey bad instructions of authority later in life. If we do not teach children to question we run the risk of happy, drug free, intelligent people pushing other people into gas chambers because they were always taught at school to do what they were told without question. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Toffers, you are the incorrigible [[Liberal]]. How you can claim that authority is ''neccesarily'' wrong, I do not know. We [[Conservative]]s hold that freedom of thought is essential: seek truth from facts, not leftist dogma, and challenge authority when it is seen to be in error. But authority as neccesarily, as intrinsically a Bad Thing? No! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I don't see much freedom of thought in this list - just teaching a kid a series of absolutes and prohibitions. The entries on teaching them to think for themself, evaluate situations and come to their own decisions were deleted. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:09, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::They are not prohibitions, they are freedoms. Freedom from disease, from pre-marital pregnancy, from ruined education and ambition, from addiction, crime and untimely death. Discipline, and self-discipline, is the doorway to freedom and should be embraced. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:12, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, but if freedom of thought is to be embraced, then surely this is one of the most important things to teach, allowing the young person to think for themself. The list as it stands has quite an authoritarian, commanding look to it. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:21, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::The problem is that far too many people think of freedom as a privilege or an entitlement--not a stern responsibility and duty. It most manifestly is. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Better that than 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::Not necessarily a bad thing - I did specifically say that it might be "spectacularly good" - but it must ''necessarily'' have something wrong with it. "Good" and "bad" is a matter of gradient, "right" and "wrong" are binary, the two only meet at "perfection". The problem with authority is that its a good place to hide from ''responsibility''. "Why did you do that?", "Because x told me to" nicely shifts the blame onto x. (I've just seen what you wrote above on self-discipline. From authority may come discipline, but it prevents ''self''-discipline)--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:27, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You need to learn discipline before you can discipline yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:31, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::What's the difference between freedom of thought and 'Hey! Dude! Like, anything goes!'? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is the distinction between liberty and licence. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I find it interesting that somebody who holds freedom of thought to be essential is so keen to narrow the range of belief [[Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?|here]] at Conservapedia. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:10, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If you read my statements carefully, instead of just looking at the header and jumping to erroneous conclusions, you would see that I have no wish to narrow any field of debate, nor to advocate hatred of atheists (in fact, quite the reverse), but merely to enable Conservapedia to operate free from the overt and covert sabotage being carried out by those people. Were they able to debate properly, there would be no problem. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)
I agree with Bugler on this point; the idea of "questioning authority" has been perverted into the universal rejection of authority. Questioning authority is both valuable and necessary; had the Founding Fathers not questioned the authority of the King, we would not enjoy the freedoms we know today. The Founders were also well aware that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people required that the people take responsibility for holding government to task.

Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority. One leads to anarchy and self-worship; the other, to totalitarianism and repression. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:44, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'':"Mindlessly rejecting all forms of authority, though, is no better than mindlessly obeying authority."'' Agreed. But we have to be very careful not to conflate "question" with "reject". If you were teaching my son, told him something he disagreed with and he asked you "why's that?" I would expect you to have an answer. If that answer where "because I said so, I am the authority, you will not question that authority", well, you haven't given him much of an answer, you haven't taught him anything and you haven't done anything to equip him for life. I'm sure that you ''do'' allow kids to question you, and I sure that it gives you a great opportunity to impart your wisdom. When it is wisdom it has an answer to the question and doesn't need to rely on "authority".--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 13:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::No-one wants to stop children asking questions, and good answers help an enquiring mind to grow. But sometimes lines have to be drawn. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::::I'd suggest that two lines are between 1)speech/thought and action and 2)questioning/holding-to-account and dismissing out of hand. Both give reasonably clear divides between what you/society/the school should allow and where you/society/the school are perfectly entitled to dictate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I generally agree with [[freedom of thought]], but particularly when it comes to adults resisting government propaganda aimed at squelching their religion. Also, in education, I prefer to let my students come to their own conclusions - instead of mandating that they believe a certain way. I tell them the truth, and if I can't convince them of it, maybe I'm not a very good teacher.

But "one is not free to thirst while drinking". So it's not [[true freedom]] to cling to a lie; and I'm not helping you to be free if I stand by idly while you fool yourself. I can't '''make''' a horse drink, but I owe him nothing less than to lead him to water. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Ed, can you explain how #12 is not at odds with #8? In #12 you tell kids that they are responsible for their choices (correct), even if their choice was to listen to others in authority like their government (still correct). Yet in #8 you're telling them that constant questioning of authority is counter-productive and destructive. If you are responsible for the consequences of every decision you make, no matter whose advice you were following, how is it wrong not to always be questioning and evaluating that advice to make sure you can live with the consequences? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:03, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== Voting Buttons ==
Would voting buttons be a good idea? My vote would go for "develop good habits", I like that one. After the "fun to decide" one - I wrote that, so obviously it's brilliant :) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:39, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:In Middle Earth, much of our behavior is governed by hobbits. It is therefore critical to consciously cultivate good hobbits, and to work to overcome bad hobbits. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::That's actually ''painful''. (But "good habits" and self-discipline is the reason Sam is the ''real'' hero of LOTR) --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:::And elf-discipline is what makes Legolas so great. X-( [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 18:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Hobbits are the strongest of all. Try reading the ''preface'' of LOTR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Master of one's body==

The idea that each person is the master of their body is used by abortionists. They regard the "proper term" for an unborn child to be ''the fetus'' - whereas conservatives regard the proper term to be nine months.

Liberals argue that the unborn child is "not human" until it takes its first breath, or can survive on its own or some such nonsense like that. This is as stupid as Mary Shelley's old horror story, ''[[Frankenstein]]''. It takes a human mother (and father) to make a human baby, and the unborn child is human from the moment of its conception.

Moreover, no one is master of their own body to the extent that they may decide what to "do with it" without regard to their obligations to their parents, to God, to society, and so forth.

Don't go down this rabbit hole. Not in a "concepts for teenagers" list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:You have misinterpreted me entirely. I am not referring to abortion at all. I am referring to the conquest of bodily impulses. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:08, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Number 6?==

This one's a bit too much of a generalization, and contradicts #12. To pick an extreme example, what would most of the folks say here about the advice a young person gets if both parents are liberals or atheists? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:18, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh #6 is a joke. That's basically saying "Parents are never wrong!". If someone actually takes this seriously and tells that to their kids, they'll have some real backlash when the kid grows a mind of their own. (Unless the purpose of this list is to prevent that, in which case... good luck) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 22:57, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Robert Dicke

2008-05-29T19:36:02Z

ATang:

'''Robert Henry Dicke''' (1916-1997) was one of the most accomplished American-born [[physicist]]s and experimental physicists in history. He made significant contributions to [[radar]], atomic physics, [[cosmology]], quantum optics, gravity physics, and astrophysics.

A tribute by his colleagues, Princeton Professors W. Happer, P. J. E. Peebles, and D. T. Wilkinson, summed up Professor Dicke's career as follows:<ref>http://bob.nap.edu/html/biomems/rdicke.html (emphasis added).</ref>

:Bob held some 50 patents, from clothes dryers to lasers. He recognized that two mirrors make a more effective laser than the traditional closed cavity of microwave technology. In the company Princeton Applied Research he and his students packaged his advances in phase-sensitive detection in the now-ubiquitous "lock-in amplifier." '''With its successors this probably has contributed as much to experimental Ph.D. theses as any device of the last generation.''' Bob predicted and experimentally showed that collisions that restrict the long-range motions of radiating atoms in a gas can suppress Doppler broadening. The physics is the same as that of Mössbauer narrowing of gamma-ray lines; it is used in the atomic clocks of the Global Positioning System. He contributed to the concept of adaptive optics in astronomy. He was among the first to recognize that the accepted gravity theory, general relativity, could and should be subject to more thorough tests. His series of gravity experiments mark the beginning of the present rich network of tests. He set forth the idea of the anthropic principle that now plays a large part in speculation on what our universe was doing before it was expanding. Bob's visualization of an oscillating universe stimulated the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, the most direct evidence that our universe really did expand from a dense state. A key instrument in measurements of this fossil of the [[Big Bang]] is the microwave radiometer he invented.

Professor Dicke was a critic of the theory of [[general relativity]] as formulated by [[Albert Einstein]]. Instead, Dicke supported an alternative theory with Professor Carl Brans known as the Brans-Dicke theory, which includes a scalar field in addition to the tensor field defined by general relativity. At one point in 1970, after some testing of both theories, Dicke stated publicly that he stood by his theory against Einstein's.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> The differences between Brans-Dicke and general relativity are slight, and both explain currently observable data.

Dicke was closely related to the 1978 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics. The 1978 physics prize went to Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who first measured the [[cosmic background radiation]], though Dicke was the theorist who explained it.<ref>http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/butowsky5/astro4k.htm and http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dicke, Robert}}

[[category:physicists]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2008-05-29T19:33:07Z

ATang: /* legal right to abortion */

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45x10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this, -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does '''not''' include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

::: The remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Falsifiability of evolution

2008-05-27T15:52:40Z

ATang: /* Falsifiability */ Grammar

The '''falsifiability of evolution''' is an issue of contention between some [[creationism|creationists]] and some [[evolutionism|evolutionists]].

== Falsifiability ==
{{main|Falsifiability}}

[[Falsifiability]] is a commonly used criterion to determine whether a particular proposition is [[science|scientific]] or non-scientific. Essentially, a proposition is considered "scientific" if it ''could'' be proven wrong by experiment, but no experiment has proven it false.

For instance, the proposition "Gravity accelerates objects towards the Earth at 32 ft/s2" can be tested by dropping an object in Earth's gravitational field. If we did this and it didn't fall, or it fell at a different speed, we would know that the proposition is false. Because we test it and it is ''not'' proven false, we can consider the proposition to be "scientific."

However, other propositions are not testable. For instance, "There is an invisible unicorn in my room." Since there is no way to test whether this proposition is true or not (it's invisible), then it is not ''scientific'' to claim that the unicorn is there.

It is important to realize that just because a proposition is ''unfalsifiable'' does not mean it is ''false.'' There ''could'' be an invisible unicorn in my room. But there could also not be. Therefore, there is no ''scientific'' basis for making the proposition.

In the same way, if a person claims that six weeks ago they drank three glasses of water for the day, there is no way that particular claim can possibly be shown to be false (barring the existence of witnesses). It is therefore not even ''possible'' to prove his claim to be wrong, so the claim is said to be ''unfalsifiable'', and therefore not a scientific claim.

== Evolution and falsifiability ==
The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."
* If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of natural selection, and seeing if it alters over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, ''and truth'', of this proposition.
* However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims such as "humans and apes spring from a common ancestor," then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim. According to the criterion of falsifiability, therefore, the assertion is not scientific.

=== Proposed tests of evolution ===

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949<ref>{{hnb|Dewar, Davies and Haldane|1949|p=90}}, quoted in {{hnb|Sarfati|2001}} </ref>, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. Creationists typically respond by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "[[irreducible complexity]]." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Evolutionists typically respond along the lines of proposing a potential line of development (without evidence that the line of development actually occurred, because the alleged development occurred long before scientific observation). Therefore, some have concluded that this is not a meaningful falsification of the theory, because hypothetical lines of development can be proposed to answer the challenge, and those hypothetical lines of development are not themselves testable.

Another test that he proposed was that the discovery of rabbits in [[Precambrian]] strata would disprove evolution.<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref>

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place", and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in [[Jurassic]] sediments would disprove evolution.

According to creationists:
{{QuoteBox|Many fossils and artefacts have been found ‘out of place’.7 That is, they are in strata that the evolutionist says represent a period of time when, for example, that organism did not live, or human artefacts could not have been made. There are plenty of examples; some published in respectable journals before the evolutionary paradigm became locked in. Such examples do not get published in modern standard evolutionary journals, possibly because it is inconceivable that such could exist in the evolutionary world-view. In another context, Nobel Prize winner
Sir Fred Hoyle said, <blockquote>‘Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked
by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by
a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors
will turn it down.’8</blockquote>
''Forbidden Archeology'', by Cremo and Thompson, lists some out-of-place human artefacts.9. ...

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood ... .
In regard to whether things found together necessarily lived and died together, paleontologists can inspect fossils for damage due to ‘reworking’ for clues that the organisms did not necessarily live or die together. However, the ‘reworked’ or ‘stratigraphic leak’ (where something ‘young’ is found in ‘old’ rock) explanation is almost invariably invoked for ‘out-of-place’ fossils.<ref>{{hnb|Batten et. al., 2007|p=192,193}}. That quote's footnote's are:<blockquote>7. For example: Howe, G.F., Williams, E.L., Matzko, G.T. and Lammerts, W.E., 1988. Creation Research Society studies on Precambrian pollen, Part III: A pollen analysis of Hakatai Shale and other Grand Canyon rocks, Creation Research Society Quarterly 24(4):173–182. 8. Horgan, J., 1995. Profile: Fred Hoyle. Scientific American 272(3):24–25. 9. Cremo, M.A. and Thompson, R.L., 1993, Forbidden Archeology. Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, CA, pp. 797–814.</blockquote></ref>}}

=== Evolutionists acknowledging that evolution is not falsifiable ===

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.}}

Popper modified his position somewhat and here is a explanation of his subsequent remarks:
{{cquote|The late Karl Popper (one of world's leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability criterion), noted that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test" in that although in "some tests ... such as the famous phenomenon known as `industrial melanism,' we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes .... Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by" (Popper, 1978, p.344). Earlier, in 1974, Popper had concluded in his book, "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," that
"Darwinism" (that is the modern Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution), "is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" which at best was only a possible framework for testable scientific theories" (Popper, 1982, p.168. My emphasis). For this Popper was attacked by Darwinists, so in 1978 he issued what he called a "recantation" (note the language of religious persecution!) but in which he stood by his claim that "the doctrine (note again the religious language) of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme" but had "changed [his] mind about the testability and the
logical status of the theory of natural selection; in that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted" (Popper, 1978, pp.344-345).

The clear implication being that Popper considered "the theory of natural selection" (the cornerstone of the modern theory of evolution") was either: 1) testable in "its most daring and sweeping form," but failed that test; or 2) untestable in any less "daring and sweeping form," which is the form it is in science today. In 1980 Popper responded to a further attack by a Darwinist by clarifying that he regarded "the theory of evolution" as among the "historical sciences" having "scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested ... by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions" (Popper, 1980). But again, it is clear that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim, and in fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained. Commenting on this, leading Darwinist philosopher of science, [[Michael Ruse]] acknowledged, "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even
now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable." (Ruse, 1982, p.133). <ref name="popper" />}}

Popper is not the only one to have made similar claims. Birch and Ehrlich previously wrote in ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.}}

Dr. Whitten later said:<ref>Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980. Quoted by Wieland, Carl, ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978 Clash over origins]''</ref>
{{cquote|Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.}}

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm Science, Religion, Creation and Evolution: Does Evolution Meet the Criterion of Falsifiability]

== Bibliography ==
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Batten, et. al.
| first = Don
| authorlink =
| year = 2007
| chapter = January 2007
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editorlink =
| title = The Creation Answers Book, chapter 15
| edition =
| place =
| publisher =
| publication-year = 2007
| volume =
| pages =
| id =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Birch
| surname2 = Ehrlich
| first1 = L.C.
| first2 = P.R.
| authorlink =
| year = 1967
| date = 22 April 1967
| title = Evolutionary History and Population Biology,
| periodical = Nature
| volume = 214
| issue =
| pages =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| surname1 = Dewar
| surname2 = Davies
| surname3 = Haldane
| first1 = D.
| first2 = L.M.
| first3 = J.B.S.
| authorlink =
| year = 1949
| date = 1949
| title = Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane
| place = London
| publisher = Paternoster
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1959
| date = 1959
| title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery
| place =
| publisher =
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}

*{{Harvard reference
| last = Popper
| first = Karl
| authorlink = Karl Popper
| year = 1976
| date = 1976
| title = Unended Quest
| place = La Salle, Ill.
| publisher = Open Court
| edition = Revised
| volume =
| id =
| url =
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Sarfati
| first = Jonathan
| authorlink = Jonathan Sarfati
| year = 2001
| date = 2001
| title = Is the design explanation legitimate?
| place =
| publisher = The True.Origin Archive
| edition =
| volume =
| id =
| url = http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp
}}

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:evolution]]
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Vaccine

2008-05-25T02:29:52Z

ATang: /* Gardasil */

I'm surprised. This is an acceptable article. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes. it is. It actually tells me something.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Blaylock Wellness Report ==

Parts of the paragraph that used the Blaylock Wellness Report as a source is very questionable. The website itself is a promotion for subscribing to a paid newsletter; it has "points" that says why vaccine is bad - but no logical evidence to back it up. Discover "the truth behind Gulf War Syndrome"? A website like that shouldn't be trusted, let alone used as a source. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Gardasil ==
The source cited for the connection between Gardisil and deaths explicitly states that no connection has been proven. I'm going to remove this bullet. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:The bullet has been restored. If you had read the article further down, you would have seen that the article writer was improperly accepting as two-plus-two-equals-four-level fact the boilerplate from the manufacturer and from the health authority, each of whom has an ax to grind. And you would have seen dissenting opinions, from a patient advocacy group and from a general practitioner who expressed grave doubts about the applicability to adolescent girls of a safety study conducted on adult women.

:The over-reliance on vaccination for the avoidance of diseases best avoided by other means will probably be the subject of an Essay someday. For now, the bullet stands, following a proper critical reading of the source.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::Fletcher and Oakley - from the patient advocacy group, and a GP, respectively - simply stated that the effects of the vaccine on adolescents are '''unknown''' - meaning they themselves haven't established the link purported in this article. I'd like to see the actual report from Judicial Watch that the news article was referring to though; since the news article itself did not cite it, I find the entire Telegraph article suspect. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Sorry, but you miss a vital element in the [[Hippocratic Oath]]: ''Never bring harm upon anyone.'' In latin, ''primum non nocere''. First of all, do no harm. By that standard, a physician who does ''anything'' to a patient without first verifying that that thing is safe is behaving in an irresponsible manner. But modern [[medicine]] has forgotten that lesson and in that manner has gone completely off the rails. And Gardasil is a prime example.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This detracts from the point that I haven't seen what the "link" is - i.e. the cited article is a secondary source and therefore not strong enough to justify the statement in this article regarding vaccines.
::::The Oath also mentions not cutting out stones as well.
::::In all seriousness, it is simply impossible to verify the safety of any drugs completely before phase IV clinical trials - meaning after the drugs has been marketed. Unless you test the drug on every single person on earth and obtain a reading on it, no drug is "safe". Patient care is always riddled with uncertainty - and if physicians waits until he's 100% all the time, they'd actually do more harm to patients by their inaction. That's when professional judgment and experience comes in.
::::And to bring this back to our original discussion about _this_ article - all drugs have adverse reactions. Stating that Gardasil "has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration" from a news article (as opposed to a medical journal) is just a cheap, baseless way of attacking vaccines. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Would you give that drug to ''your'' daughter?

:::::I've read medical journals. They are not the platinum standard of scientific inquiry that you believe them to be. I have personally seen ''The New England Journal of Medicine'' duped big-time by someone—at [[Duke University]], no less—pulling a total dry-lab job. Imagine the mortification of the senior professor who signed off on that person's papers, and even put his name on them, when he found out ''years later'' what a puerile fraud his student had been, and had to issue retractions.

:::::And I have seen other things get into ''The New England Journal of Medicine'' from "investigators" who were all on drug-company payrolls. I cite [[RU-486]] as a prime example.

:::::And that's just one journal, a journal that I might add already had developed an unsavory reputation among teaching-hospital staffers, from the chairman level through the attending level and on down to the residents, for scholarship that was less than sterling. I cannot even repeat their toilet-humor pun on the journal's name—at least, not here I can't.

:::::Those who comment on, and especially those who make, public policy would be a lot more effective if they would just do a little bit of critical reading every now and then.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::Again, I'm trying to improve the validity of this article by analyzing the references, not arguing for or against the efficacy or hazards of the vaccine. Why do you ask me whether I'd give the vaccine to my daughter? Unless my answer is going to be part of this article, it is absolutely irrelevant. (For your information, I do not have any children, and if I had a daughter I will not give her the shot before the age of 16. When she's reached that age she'll make her own decision regarding the shot.)
::::::If you cite a primary source, it'd remove any potential bias that inherently exists in secondary sources. All I've been trying to say is that you should read that news article with the same attitude as you should with medical journals - with a grain of salt. Especially given the gravity of the statement - that the deaths has been linked to the vaccine - I believe we need something a little more than a news article. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 22:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Vaccine

2008-05-23T19:08:03Z

ATang: /* Gardasil */

Talk:Vaccine

2008-05-23T16:36:19Z

ATang: /* Gardasil */

Canada

2008-05-22T19:52:33Z

ATang: /* Education */ There are other schools.

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. Canada's motto "A Mari usque ad Mare" (From sea to sea) is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenant Governors, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million fewer people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is [[Catholicism|Catholic]], with a another 29% being [[Protestantism|Protestant]] (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, congruent with the world-wide trend of increasing secularism in young demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (e.g. Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an R, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by R. A ranges from 100%-80%, B from 79%-70%, C from 69%-60%, D from 59%-50% and R is any mark less than 50%. However, this may vary from province to province; it is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Canada

2008-05-22T19:49:26Z

ATang: /* Religion */ Spelling

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. Canada's motto "A Mari usque ad Mare" (From sea to sea) is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenant Governors, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million fewer people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is [[Catholicism|Catholic]], with a another 29% being [[Protestantism|Protestant]] (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, congruent with the world-wide trend of increasing secularism in young demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an R, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by R. A ranges from 100%-80%, B from 79%-70%, C from 69%-60%, D from 59%-50% and R is any mark less than 50%. However, this may vary from province to province; it is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Canada

2008-05-22T19:49:06Z

ATang: /* Religion */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. Canada's motto "A Mari usque ad Mare" (From sea to sea) is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenant Governors, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million fewer people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is [[Catholicism|Catholic]], with a another 29% being [[Protestantism|Protestant]] (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, congruent with the world-wide trend of increasing secularism in oung demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an R, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by R. A ranges from 100%-80%, B from 79%-70%, C from 69%-60%, D from 59%-50% and R is any mark less than 50%. However, this may vary from province to province; it is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Canada

2008-05-22T19:46:56Z

ATang: /* Culture */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. Canada's motto "A Mari usque ad Mare" (From sea to sea) is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenant Governors, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million fewer people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is [[Catholicism|Catholic]], with a another 29% being [[Protestantism|Protestant]] (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, which might imply that the younger generation in Canada is becoming more secular, but statistics world-wide always indicate such in the younger demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an R, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by R. A ranges from 100%-80%, B from 79%-70%, C from 69%-60%, D from 59%-50% and R is any mark less than 50%. However, this may vary from province to province; it is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Iceland at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Michael Moore

2008-05-20T19:02:46Z

ATang: /* Earnings */

[[Image:Michael-Moore.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is a [[liberal|left wing]], admitted [[Socialist]] filmmaker and [[Conspiracy Theorist]] who is critical of the US government, as can be seen in his reply to the question "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?":
{{cquote|I like America to some extent. … Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32174</ref>}}

==Manufacturing consent==
He is a hero in [[liberal]] Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based upon themes about alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President [[George W. Bush]] as part of a massive conspiracy, named ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Millions watched the movie, but many questioned its comparatively outlandish claims and Bush was reelected without ever dignifying the smear with a comment.<ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies. Later he produced "Bowling for Columbine."

Some of his other work includes the anti-corporation film ''Roger and Me'' and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American'' and ''Stupid White Men''.

Moore also directed the anti-war music video for "Boom!" by [[System of a Down]], which was released to coincide with the beginning of the [[Iraq war]].

His production company which produces feature documentary-style films is Michael Moore Films.<ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries ''Michael Moore Hates America''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, ''Fahrenhype 9/11''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary ''Manufacturing Dissent''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref> He was also the subject of books including ''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref> and ''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left'' by Jesse Larner.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>
[[Image:Moore html.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Moore, ranting|175px]]

== Sicko ==
As an ardent socialist, he is a staunch supporter of [[Cuba|Cuban]] dictator [[Fidel Castro]]<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080220/D8UUBU600.html</ref> and promotes the Castro regime's polices in his film, ''[[Sicko]]'', was released in late June 2007. In this "documentary" Moore argues for a nationalized health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>

Kurt Loder of MTV news said of it:

<blockquote>
"Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed. 

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one. 

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)"[http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml]
</blockquote>

==Earnings==
Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00. A breakdown for just the [[United States of America]] is below.

{| style="background:white" border="1" class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center"|Michael Moore's Gross box office film earnings under the capitalist free market system<ref>[http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php The Numbers]</ref>
|-
! Film
! U.S. Gross $
|-
| Roger & Me
|style="text-align:right"| $6,706,368
|-
| Canadian Bacon
|style="text-align:right"| $178,104
|-
| The Big One
|style="text-align:right"| $720,074
|-
| Bowling for Columbine
|style="text-align:right"| $21,576,018
|-
| Fahrenheit 9/11
|style="text-align:right"| $119,114,517
|-
| Sicko
|style="text-align:right"| $21,500,000
|-
| '''TOTAL'''
|style="text-align:right"| '''$169,795,081'''
|}

==Treasury investigation==
According to ''Reuters'' in June 2007, Moore is reported to have hidden assets in Canada in reaction to an official investigation. Moore was operating offshore in Cuba allegedly as a "journalistic endeavor." The United States Treasury Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1119539820070613 Moore fears film seizure after Cuba trip], Michelle Nichols, ''Reuters'', June 12, 2007. </ref>

==Criticism==
'''[[Christopher Hitchens]]''' said of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore's work:
{{Cquote|'''To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." '''<ref>[http://slate.com/id/2102723/ The lies of Michael Moore]. By Christopher Hitchens, //Slate'', June 21, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile], Paul A. Ibbetson, ''New Media Journal, June 9, 2007,</ref>}}

In 2004, Moore warned that if [[George W. Bush|Bush]] was re-elected as President: "...he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it - Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich."<ref>Moore, Michael [http://www.clark04.com/moore/ ''I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush''] 14 January 2004; Clark for President site. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref> Over four years later, the draft had not been reintroduced.

Moore says that corporations are "terrorists" and has said "I don't own a single share of stock" but IRS records showed he owned at least several hundreds of thousand dollars in stocks in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, and even Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.

Moore uses a private jet on his book tours and stays at the Ritz Carlton hotel when in [[London]], but conducts press interviews in a cheap hotel nearby to give reporters the impression he is staying there instead. Moore calls himself "an Average Joe from Flint, MI" and says, "Once you’re working class, you’re always working class". The reality is that hypocrite Moore lives a luxury-class lifestyle out of reach of most Flint residents.

Moore says that Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, but lives in a town (Central Lake, Michigan) which according to the 2000 Census, had a black population of zero.

==Wikipedia controversy==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]]]]
Michael Moore's official website [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] put an image and name of a [[Wikipedia]] editor on its main page with links to edit both Wikipedia's article on ''[[Sicko]]'' and the Wikipedia editor's user page. Wikipedia policy explicitly states,
:"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances'''."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]
Wikipedia Dispute Resolution policy stated aim is to "primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope] and not content disputes. Policy further states,
:"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user...Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site]
Wikipedia Conflict of interest policy states, "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F] and "Campaigning. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world... may have a conflict of interest."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Examples]

Protection of Wikipedia editors from activities targeting editors for harassment also states,"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Combatting_harassment], and finally, "It is unacceptable to harass another user."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Harrassment]

Unequivocally, Michael Moore's official website, michaelmoore.com, engaged in egregious violations of multiple Wikipedia policies warranting blocking of users from Michael Moore's website, and editors linking to it. Further, official Wikipedia policy states all links to Michael Moore’s website from Wikipedia must be removed.

In discussion of the case, harassment and intimidation of a Wikipedia editor was excused, whose expertise on the subject of healthcare was characterized as "an attorney, who is a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] think tank." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] The interpersonal nature of the attack was ignored by Wikipedia's rule making body, in favor of,
:"a bunch of considerations. One is that ''Sicko'', finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley... we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. ..."

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] Wikipedia Arbitration Chairman stated,
:"Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support."

When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, the Chairman said,
:"If a powerful [[leftwing]] celebrity attacks a [[rightwing]] Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site."

==See also==
*[[Schlockumentary]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Michael Moore|Articles about '''Michael Moore''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html WikiEN-l Harassment sites], Sun Oct 14 19:27:21 UTC 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[category:propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

King Arthur

2008-05-20T18:44:47Z

ATang: /* Relation to Mono-Myth */

'''King Arthur''' was a mythical king of [[England]]. The myth has a number of formulations, some more dominant in the popular mind.

== T.H. White's formulation, ''The Once & Future King'' ==
According to T.H. White, who formulates the modern version of Arthurian Myth, Arthur was taken from his father, King [[Uther Pendragon]], when he was a baby by [[Merlin]], a wizard who lives life in reverse.

Merlin brings Arthur to the estate of a noble to be raised thinking that the noble is his father. When Arthur grows older, he becomes a page for the noble's son, Sir Kay. During this time Uther Pendragon becomes ill and soon dies. So Merlin says that they should have a grand tournament, and afterwards he will announce the next king. At the tournament Kay breaks his sword, so he sends Arthur to find him another. In his haste Arthur grabs a sword that is sticking out of a stone in the town square. As it turns out Merlin had laid a spell on the stone that said that whoever could pull the sword - [[Excalibur]] - out of the stone would be the next king, so Arthur was made king. During his mythical reign, Arthur united all of England, and formed a league of knights called the Knights of the Round Table. When they gathered together, they all sat at a round table so no seat was better than another.

Arthur later sent his knights on a quest to find the [[Holy Grail]], which they finally found on the Isle of [[Avalon]] guarded by an order of virgin priestesses led by [[Morgan la Fay]]. After this successful quest, Arthur's illegitimate nephew [[Mordred]] planned to overthrow him, and the two met in battle at [[Camlann]]. Mordred is killed, and Arthur, mortally wounded, is taken to the Isle of Avalon for healing by Morgan la Fay. According to legend he will only return when his country truly needs him.

== King Arthur in History ==
The death of Arthur occurred in the year 539 AD, according to Welsh chronicles.<ref>''Annales Cambriae'', which cryptically states only that Arthur and Mordred both fell at the Battle of Camlaan, with no reference to either in the rest of the text.</ref> After Arthur's departure, England broke up into warring factions and was not again a united kingdom until the time of [[Alfred the Great]] in the 9th century.

== Relation to Mono-Myth ==
Joseph Campbell, in his book ''The Hero with a Thousand Faces'', describes elements of popular mythology evident in many cultures, and many different stories. One such characteristic is the obscure nature of the hero, which most iterations of the Arthur myth do satisfy.

== References==
<references/>

[[Category:Arthurian Mythology]]

Peptide bond

2008-05-14T19:19:18Z

ATang:

'''Peptide bonds''' are chemical bonds between carboxyl groups and amino groups. They link [[amino acid]]s together to form [[protein|proteins]].

[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-09T13:37:16Z

ATang: /* Bruce Lee */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

::He was a cannabis user, and the health risks of cannabis are well known; even today (literally) the leftist British government has reclassified cannabis as a class B drug (from being class C, the lowest class of illegal substance, A being the highest). It is scarcely surprising that cannabis use - an HV practice in itself - may well have contributed to Lee's early death. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Yeah, it 'may' have - but by the same argument, UV exposure or asbestos inhalation may have contributed to his death too. My point is - when the cause of death is not conclusive, you cannot point to one single factor. Cannabis is not known to cause swelling of the brain; until there is an established link between the cerebral edema and cannabis use, I don't see how HV caused his death. Like I stated before, you cannot list every death of persons who have Hollywood Values. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:37, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Jupiter

2008-05-08T19:36:26Z

ATang: Undo revision 449640 by Special:Contributions/MaAmazing (User talk:MaAmazing)

{{Planet
| image=Jumpsas.jpg
| caption=This processed color image of Jupiter was produced in 1990 by the U.S. Geological Survey from a Voyager image captured in 1979
|symbol=Jupiter symbol.svg
|discname=Known to ancients
|origname=Roman king of gods<ref name=nasa1>"[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&Display=Overview Entry for Jupiter]." ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>
|order=6
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=4.95 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|apoapsis=5.46 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|semimajor=5.203 AU<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html Jupiter Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[NASA]], November 2, 2007. Accessed March 2, 2008.</ref>
|bode=5.2 AU<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|circumference=32.675 AU<ref name=nasa1/>
|eccentricity=0.048<ref name=nasa1/>
|sidereal=11.862 a<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|synodic=398.88 da (1.092 a)<ref name=nasa2/>
|orbitspeed=13.07 km/s<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|inclination=1.305°<ref name=nasa1/>
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=9.925 h (0.414 da)<ref name=nasa1/><ref name=nasa2/>
|solarday=9.9259 h<ref name=nasa2/>
|axialtilt=3.13°<ref name=nasa1/>
|mass=1.8986 * 1027 kg (317.705 * earth)<ref name=nasa1/>
|density=1,326 kg/m³<ref name=nasa1/>
|surfacegrav=22.88 m/s² (2.333 ''g'')<ref name=nasa1/>
|escapespeed=59.56 km/s<ref name=nasa1/>
|equatorradius =71,492 km<ref name=nasa1/>
|surfacearea=61,400,000,000 km² (120.375 * earth)<ref name=nasa1/>
|meantemp=152 K<ref name=nasa1/>
|moons=28
|composition=90% hydrogen and 10% helium<ref name=nasa1/>
|color=Colored latitudinal bands
|albedo=0.52<ref name=ssdphys>"[http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par Planet Physical Characteristics]." Solar System Dynamics, [[JPL]], [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>
}}
'''Jupiter''' is the fifth [[planet]] from the [[sun]], and the most massive. In fact, this [[gas giant]] is the largest body in the [[solar system]] except for the sun itself, and more than two times as massive as all the other planets combined. In composition it closely resembles a [[star]], so much so that some authorities hold that had it been eighty times as massive, it would have become a star.

== Ancient knowledge and naming ==
Named after the ruler of the Roman gods, Jupiter is large and bright enough to be seen by the naked eye. In fact it is the fourth-brightest object in the night sky, after the [[Sun]], the [[Moon]], and the planet [[Venus]].<ref name=arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/jupiter.html Entry for Jupiter]." ''The <s>Nine</s> 8 Planets'', April 10, 2005. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> Jupiter is conspicuous and easy to recognize. An observer carrying 7-power field glasses (of a type used for birding or hunting) will see a round disk that shines steadily. An observer with a small telescope should also be able to resolve the [[Galilean moons]], as [[Galileo Galilei]] himself did. They will appear, as they did to Galileo, as "stars" traveling in "formation" with Jupiter and changing their positions relative to Jupiter in a single night of observation.

The [[Babylonia]]ns believed that their god [[Marduk]] set Jupiter in the sky to guide the stars.<ref name=nelson>Nelson, Clark. "[http://www.timeemits.com/HoH_Articles/399-Day_Mean_Synodic_Period_of_Jupiter.htm 399-day Mean Synodic Period of Jupiter]." <http://www.timeemits.com/>, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> Jupiter might have had an influence in the invention of several ancient calendars, including the Mayan calendar, the Egyptian calendar, the ancient (pre-Hillel II) Hebrew calendar, and possibly the calendar in use (at least by the [[Seth]]ite generations of [[Adam]]) before the [[Great flood|Great Flood]]).<ref name=nelson/>

The name of the Roman god derives from [[Japheth]], one of the sons of [[Noah]].<ref>Cooper, Bill, "After the Flood", 1995, p.40, New Wine, ISBN 1 874367 40 X.</ref>

== Orbital characteristics ==
Jupiter completes one slightly eccentric orbit around the [[Sun]] in 11.86 years, and returns to the same position in [[Earth]]'s night sky in roughly 399 years.<ref name=nasa2/><ref name=nelson/> Its mean distance from the Sun is about 5.2 AU--almost exactly the distance predicted by the [[Titius-Bode law]] of planetary distances. Though Jupiter is the fifth ''planet'' from the Sun, it is actually the ''sixth'' object of a size requiring the assumption of a spheroidal shape. Hence ''n=6'' is the proper number to use in the Bode's Law formula.

== Rotational characteristics ==
Jupiter has a very short sidereal day of about 9.92 hours. However, its latitudinal cloud bands rotate at different speeds, and some of these appear to rotate retrograde. Astronomers once calculated the Jovian day from observations of the equatorial cloud band, but today they rely on the periodicity of Jupiter's magnetic field.<ref name=nasa3>Gierasch, Peter J., and Philip D. Nicholson. "Jupiter." World Book Online Reference Center. 2004. World Book, Inc. <http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar293080.> Hosted as "[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html Entry for Jupiter]," World Book at [[NASA]]. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>

== Physical characteristics ==
Jupiter is about 318 times as massive as Earth, and has a radius of 71,492 km (44,423 miles). Its atmosphere is composed primarily of 86% [[hydrogen]], 14% [[helium]], and traces of [[methane]], [[ammonia]], [[phosphine]], [[water]], [[acetylene]], [[ethane]], [[germanium]], and [[carbon monoxide]].<ref name=nasa3/> It is so thick that no record exists of the surface, if Jupiter has one in the traditional sense--though Jupiter might have a heavy-metal core having a composition similar to that of [[Earth]] but 20 to 30 times as massive.<ref name=nasa3/>

=== The Great Red Spot and other storms ===
The planet endures continual storms. The most famous of these is the Great Red Spot, which has raged for at least three hundred years. The most precise estimate of its duration is 342 years,<ref name=Than>Than, Ker. "[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060731_red_spots.html Differences Spotted in Jupiter's Big Red Storms]." <http://www.space.com/>, July 31, 2006. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> but this might refer merely to the first time that someone observed it with a telescope capable of resolving it. It is large enough to encompass the entirety of the [[Earth]] and rotates anticlockwise along Jupiter's equator. Winds at its edge circulate at 360 km/h<ref name=nasa3/>, far faster than those of the most powerful [[hurricane]] ever recorded on Earth.

=== Radiation of heat ===
Jupiter actually radiates 1.7 times the heat that strikes it from the Sun.<ref name=Weisstein>Weisstein, Eric W. "[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Jupiter.html Jupiter]." ''Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy'', accessed March 3, 2008.</ref> This could be due to Kelvin-Helmholtz gravitational compression, a process that also limits the size that Jupiter can have.<ref name=arnett/>

== Magnetic field ==
Jupiter has a magnetic field about 14 times as strong as that of Earth. This field tends to shield Jupiter from the [[solar wind]]. However, the field has also trapped large numbers of radioactive particles in a Van-Allen-like radiation belt<ref name=nasa3/> that actually encompasses the orbits of the seven innermost moons. The magnetic field extends beyond the far side of Jupiter for at least 700 million kilometers.<ref name=nasa3/>

== Ring system ==
Jupiter does have a ring, consisting of three components, called the halo, the main ring, and the gossamer ring. This ring lies entirely within the region occupied by the four innermost moons, and probably derives its substance from escaping dust from the two innermost moons, [[Metis]] and [[Adrastea]]. The average size of the ring particles is 10 microns, comparable in size to the particles in [[tobacco]] smoke.<ref name=nasa4>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jupiter&Display=Rings Jupiter:Rings]." ''Solar System Exploration'', [[NASA]], February 7, 2008. Accessed March 3, 2008.</ref>

== Problems for uniformitarian theories ==
Jupiter, as mentioned above, is radiating heat at 1.7 times the rate that it receives it from the [[Sun]]. That this heat flux could be solely due to Jupiter losing the heat of its formation as a planet 4.6 billion years ago begs explanation.

Jupiter's sidereal day is less than ten Earth hours long. If Jupiter formed simply as an accretion aggregate of the [[nebula hypothesis|solar nebula]], then it should not have acquired such tremendous angular momentum. The problem involves not merely the short sidereal day but also Jupiter's tremendous mass.

The alternative theory is that Jupiter formed as a "failed protostar" at the center of its own nebula. But Jupiter never ignited--and furthermore, none of Jupiter's 63 moons is gaseous. Therefore a key event in the nebular sequence did not take place. Besides, the four dwarf-planet-sized [[Galilean moons]] have vastly differing apparent geological "ages."

== Exploration ==
[[Galileo Galilei]] studied Jupiter extensively and in the process discovered its four largest moons--[[Io]], [[Europa]], [[Ganymede]], and [[Callisto]], also known as the [[Galilean moons]]. Many other astronomers studied Jupiter from Earth-bound telescopes for hundreds of years. In the process they discovered twelve of Jupiter's moons and the Great Red Spot, but did not discover Jupiter's ring system.

Seven spacecraft, all from the [[United States]], have visited Jupiter thus far. First to do so was [[Pioneer 10]] (December 3, 1973), which suffered tremendously from the radiation belt but still provided the evidence for Jupiter's [[magnetosphere]]. [[Pioneer 11]] was next (December, 1974) and took far better images of Jupiter and its Great Red Spot.

[[Voyager 1]] (March, 1979) and [[Voyager 2]] (July, 1979) gave the first comprehensive views of Jupiter and the Jovian system, including the discovery of its rings, the discovery of four moons inside [[Io]], and the first extensive studies of the [[Galilean moons]].

[[Ulysses]] (February 1992) made a brief flyby of Jupiter in order to place itself in polar orbit around the Sun. Nevertheless [[European Space Agency]] scientists used this opportunity to make further measurements of Jupiter's magnetosphere and the effect upon it by the solar wind.

[[Galileo Project|Galileo]] reached Jupiter in 1995. It released a probe to dive into Jupiter's atmosphere; that probe transmitted for nearly an hour before the tremendous pressures crushed it. Galileo's orbiter remained in the system for nearly eight years, through two extensions of its mission, and conducted the most extensive surveys of the Galilean moons to day. Eventually, with the craft low on fuel, mission planners dived it into Jupiter to prevent its possibly crashing into [[Europa]], rupturing Europa's ice sheet, and contaminating the liquid ocean that astronomers now suspect lies a mere 10 km deep to the ice and could yet harbor [[extraterrestrial life]].<ref name=nasa3/>

[[Cassini-Huygens mission|Cassini]] flew by Jupiter briefly in 2000 on its way to [[Saturn]]. While in the Jovian system, it took the image shown at the top of this article.

The [[New Horizons mission]] will include a Jupiter flyby in its journey to the [[Pluto]] system.

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

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:35:34Z

ATang: /* Bruce Lee */

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:35:07Z

ATang: /* Bruce Lee */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not as a result of cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid an edit war by pointing to the talk page)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:33:52Z

ATang:

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not as a result of cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid it by pointing to the talk page)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:33:40Z

ATang: /* Bruce Lee */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not as a result of cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

:Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

:[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:33, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:PS. Heh, I just saw what you typed. Merging the topics. (And I'm trying to avoid it by pointing to the talk page)

== Bruce Lee ==

Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not as a result of cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:32:04Z

ATang: Bruce Lee

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==You're bloody kidding me==
Death is a value? Sexually-transmitted disease is a value? I have no clue what you're trying to say here-- That Hollywood is responsible for death and STDs? Or that actors somehow worship these two things? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: You are clueless. Drug use and promiscuity are [[Hollywood values]], and they cause death.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::The paranoia in that comment aside, that still doesn't make death a value... Or disease, for that matter. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::You're misreading (or misunderstanding) the entry, Bari. It doesn't say that disease and death ''are'' Hollywood values, it says that Hollywood values breed a culture that ''leads to'' disease and death.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::My apologies, it appears that you are correct... or at least you were, before the last grammar fix. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 14:53, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Hypocrisy ==

Why was the new section Hypocrisy deleted? It was a fair point as explained eloquently at [[Liberal Hypocrisy]] I would have asked the reverting Sysop but the talk page is locked. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:35, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:The context of Clooney portraying a US military officer was not explained. Please cease trying to attract my attention, and go back to your own website where I'm sure you will be much happier. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::Context has now been added. I don't have a website. But thank you for your concern about my happiness. [[User:JoeSoap|JoeSoap]] 10:51, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== removal ==

How can you justify Tate being a victim of hollywood values? Please point to it? I dont want to get into an edit but you cant just add with the tag "because I say so"
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:05, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: It's self-evident from the explanation given. Tate was not a perpetrator of the crime, but became a victim of the culture in which she joined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No it is not self evident. What culture did she join? married a film director? Associated with hippies? If that so then she was a victim of hippies values. Her 'culture' lead her to be murdered? many people get murdered and she was targeted because she was famous. That has nothing to do with so called holloywood values.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:57, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Right removing the Tate stuff again. At the time of the murder Sharon Tate has not been using drugs or alcohol, she was pregnant and the Mason family was actually interested in killing a man who refused to sign his band up. Tate was unlucky but it is clearly at odds with other deaths listed with hers as she was murdered!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

: Wow: Tate's murder was just the product of chance, like getting hit by a car! No, AdenJ, Tate's murder was the result of [[Hollywood values]]. Maybe the initial intended victim was someone else, but that reinforces how [[Hollywood values]] work that they killed her instead. The entry is staying in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I give up, its totally ridiculous. Sharon Tate was murdered, It was nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with values. Unless its the values of Manson.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, Tate's murder had ''everything'' to do with values. And, duh, that does include the [[Hollywood values]] of Manson and his followers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

So its 'duh' now is it? How did Mason have hollywood values? He was in no movies and was a poor musician. How was he affected by hollywood values? Because he was obessed with The Beatles? Who wasnt at that time. He was a drug crazed hippie with a severe mental problem.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

This article just cherry-picks famous people (or...not, in the case of "1920s cornettists" and similar cases), and stretches a granule, albeit a malleable one, miles and miles away from the true root causes of their deaths to make some point that these people's deaths are connected to some Spectre of Glittery Death looming up over Mulholland. How many famous people are there? There must be...untold millions of YouTube phenoms, game show contestants, sandwich shop spokesman, and to highlight a few flare-ups is entirely counter to any kind of legitimacy an encyclopedic volume should have. When I look at that list, I see Sid Vicious, who, as far as I know, lived in the UK for 98% of his life. I see Elvis Presley (maybe there should be a "Memphis values" page). And Sharon Tate...Sharon Tate? Wasn't Manson actually trying to kill somebody else, someone who wasn't there (supposedly a record honcho or someother such person who denied him a chance to be on a Beach Boys record). If that's how we're gonna be about it, and say innocent pregnant sober bystanders are perpetrators of Hollywood values, then let's say those whores that Jack the Ripper killed were victims of "West End values". [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 18:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Linus has given us the fundamental [[liberal denial]]: denying that [[liberal]] values have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly has given us the fundamental conservative denial.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:24, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::'''I don't see anywhere in my graph where I denied that liberal values have consequences'''. I think that this whole liberal/conservative jive is basically a distraction, an abstract that exists only theoretically, and even then, as a theory lend creedence by consensus. If these people's death is going to be attributed to a set of industries in a geographic location, then it's already got the integrity of arguing about air temperature. Who cares? I'm not some objectivist/nihilist (probably mutually exclusive philosophies, but often combined nonetheless by people who don't understand them), so I'm not going to deforest the issue by going on some bleat about how we're all just "computers made out of meat" or whatnot, but I think this issue is...not an issue. I'm not arguing at it from any perspective other than one which states all perspectives are already invalid if it comes from a person who cares about things like this. So to say that anybody's neurons are any better than anyone else's simply because of the choices which all the electric 1's and 0's in our brains combine to create, is stupid. Even the whole idea of "liberal denial", which is supposed to be some kind of searing label which supercedes all the fray of bickering and mudslinging, has been trampled on by reductive childishness that's rampant here. Liberal denial. That's all your arguement is here. You'll say, I'm using liberal denial because what I'm saying is a denial coming from a liberal viewpoint. You define my point of view, incorrectly, sure, but you're still just defining it. Not '''re'''fining it, not clarifying or showing how it's wrong and maybe trying to excise the benign liberal tumors you probably surmise exist within my brain stem, you're just defining it. I should have taken a hint from the logo and realized that "applying logos" and "slapping labels" is basically the fundamental economy of Conservapedia. All apologies.
[[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 21:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
==Miley Cyrus==
see http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0
"They include shots of the teen wrapped in what appears to be a satin bedsheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed."

she was not topless-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:That's your opinion and you are not an accepted reference for material. I provided not one, not two but THREE references that described the photo as "topless." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::She was topless unless you are prepared to call a sheet a "top".

::Do we want to put our cards on the table people? Clearly the reason that some here do not want this addition to the Hollywood values page is that Ms Cyrus appeared on the Main Page here not long ago as an exemplar of Christian virtue when she spoke of her ambition to abstain from sex until marriage (if memory serves).

::Well, now she's been photographed topless. I'll bet if it were Hillary Clinton you would all be loudly insisting that the description "topless" was absolutely accurate. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Er, no. What *is* clear is that her parents and Disney decided to let her be posed in as risque a fashion as possible - thus largely '''negating''' her value as a role model. My only objection is to the word ''topless'' which implies visible headlights rather than shrouded ones. Perhaps you'd like to right about teen [[role model]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:48, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

::::As I said, three references described the photo as "topless." However, I've now clarified the extend of the toplessness in the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

topless requires that the breasts be exposed since they were not she was not topless -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:49, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:*sigh* Jinx, you can say that some sources said the girl was topless. That would come under the heading of "exaggeration", I'd say. Unless the editor in chief overturns my decision, I intend to have us all avoid that word. Let's not embarrass the girl any more than she already has been. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:52, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::That's pretty rich having regard to a number of the other accustaions and comments in the article. --[[User:ElizabethR|ElizabethR]] 21:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:No, it actually doesn't require that the breasts be exposed. Neither does "nude" require that genitals be exposed. Demi Moore was nude when she posed for Vanity Fair's cover when pregnant even though neither her breasts or genitals were exposed. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:08, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm an easily lead, ignorant Christian. Tell me what change you'd like to see in the article - or make it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Let's dial down the fuss a bit, folks. I was the one who originally posted the Cyrus line, and I didn't intend to start a war. I used the term "topless" because, a) that's the way I've heard it reported today, and b) it's accurate, strictly speaking. However, while I recognize that in common vernacular, "topless" implies a more explicit condition than exists in this case, I expected someone to come up with a better term rather than a complete (and unwarranted) reversion. So, maybe we can keep the item, but change the descriptive word? "Suggestive"? "Racy"? "Controversial"? "Provocative"? "Naughty"? Suggestions welcome...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm letting Deborah decide this one. (If you must apply an adjective, try "risqué".) Anyway, the emphasis should be on the parents, as she is a minor and not responsible for photo shoot decisions.

:We can write an article on how parents of teen stars, such as Britney Spears, Hillary Duff & Lindsay Lohan, have managed their daughters' careers. But do we have a decent article on [[Modesty]] yet? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::All good suggestions. And don't forget Brooke Shields and her mother--They were a notorious pair a quarter-century ago (not that I'm old enough to remember such things [cough]).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:::As a former Disney employee, I must say the company needs to pay more attention to its [[role model]]s for tweens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Call me cynical but I think it's just like any mega multi-national corporation, all that matters is the bottom line. And let's face it, sex (and abstinence) sells. You know back in the studio days women had to behave very nicely otherwise they'd be fired from their contract, then the supreme court broke them up and there went the Golden (or was it Silver?) age of Hollywood.
::::And anyway, shouldn't their '''parents''' be more concerned then a board of directors? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lenny Bruce/Sharon Tate/Blaming the victim ==

While Lenny did die because of a heroin OD, he was a standup comic (Comedian Values?), not an actor he only appeared on TV six times on variety/talk shows, definitely not Hollywood. I'd like to believe the government's horrible persecution of him led to his downward spiral.

As far as the Tate case. Andy, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't familiar with the story, here is a [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonaccount.html link to it,] '''if you still think that she did herself in because of Hollywood values, then ''by all means'' put it back in.

As for me, it makes me sick to my stomach to somehow imply that she was anyway responsible for her own death, that's worse then saying "well if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that low-cut dress".'''

And just to make sure you don't go off subject and say that I'm a typical liberal, I'll admit that I '''agree''' with the premise of the article.
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Goodness, no, we would never insult you like that. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==Bruce Lee==

ATang, please stop removing this item. Edit wars are frowned on at CP, so I suggest that if you want it deleted you seek the advice of a sysop. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:29, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

== Bruce Lee ==

Bruce Lee died of cerebral edema. Traces of a painkiller and cannabis were found postmortem. However, the cause of death was not as a result of cannabis; ergo, the link between Hollywood values and his death was not established.

Otherwise you should list every cannabis user who died, regardless of cause of death. For example - if a lone hunter was attacked by a black bear and died as a result, and they found traces of THC in his body, would you say that's the cause of death? That he died of drug use? Or that he died because of Hollywood values? (Now... if he got high and provoked the bear, that's an entirely different story...)

[[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:32, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:27:01Z

ATang: Undo revision 449598 by Special:Contributions/Bugler (User talk:Bugler) You cannot possibly list every death of a cannibis user as the result of Hollywood values. See Talk Page.

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which is characterized by rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fuelled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
* [[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumoured to have suffocated on the carpet when he collpased from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include stealing and committing other crimes. Here are some examples:

* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.

==Divorce==

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], a [[Christian]] actor and director, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (aka [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0]
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0]

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]] <ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney stared in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

== References ==

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Hollywood values

2008-05-08T18:04:33Z

ATang: /* Deaths */ "Cannabis found in bloodstream..." doesn't imply that it caused his death. No direct evidence that "Hollywood values" caused his death!!

Talk:Medulla

2008-05-07T15:32:47Z

ATang: New page: The link medulla oblongata is redirected to this page, Medulla - which isn't the same thing... The page then describes the functions of the medulla oblongata. (The medulla simply ...

The link [[medulla oblongata]] is redirected to this page, [[Medulla]] - which isn't the same thing... The page then describes the functions of the medulla oblongata. (The medulla simply refers to the "middle" of something, e.g. adrenal medulla)
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-31T18:39:04Z

ATang: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's also a simpler world back then - less to learn, less preparation, and there's also fewer opportunities to escape the class you're born in. Now, we need 12 years of primary and secondary school, just to get a mediocre, blue-collar job. Four years of university for a middle-class position, not to mention masters and PhD's. There's so much more to learn that kids can "afford" to delay learning concepts vitally needed in order to sustain themselves in the real world (i.e. responsibility) - and in today's world parents are also spending less time with their kids! Because the delayed "release" into the real world, kids nowadays are mentally younger while biologically older. (From what I've seen, those who get a job early learn responsibility and maturity much, much quicker than those who don't) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So what plays would you have them study, Pach? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: And as a corollary... should Othello, MacBeth, Odyssey, Illiad all be banned from schools as well? Lord of the Flies? All of these contain a lot of violence (and racism too). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. There must be mountains of material that is artistic, educational and wholesome. When I was at school, we did R&J, and worse still, were instructed to see the film (Zefirelli version), which led to regrettable impurity of thought. So I know whereof I speak. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the essence of any literary work is conflict, so what would you have high school students reading? I'm a librarian myself, I'm not sure there are 'mountains' of young adult literature that don't contain violence or difficult choices about sexuality. I ask again...what specific works of fiction would you assign teenagers to read? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:53, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: The less racy Jane Austen novels might be a good place to start. ''Sense and Sensibility'' is one of the more moral of them. Anything from the Elizabethan/Jacobean canon is likely to be regrettably carnal. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Older teens can read [[Hamlet]]. It has suicide, murder, accusations of incest, dueling. It has two cases of poisoning (Prince Hamlet's father King Hamlet murdered; King Claudius attempts to poison the prince but kills his mother by mistake). Then there's the "lie between your legs (c'untry matters)" stuff. Shakespeare would have been rated R back then. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I certainly think that misbehaving teens should be made to sit through a Shakespeare comedy. That'd learn them. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, I simply cannot see how you could ban all those works from schools. The biggest lessons I learned from Othello, R&J, and Lord of the Flies is the ugly sides of human nature - and all three of the works express the tragedy that will result. No way that could be seen as promoting the acts depicted in the works. The death of Piggy didn't prompt me to push someone off a cliff - it's such a reinforcement that that was wrong! [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, I still shudder and look over my shoulder every time I put on my "specs". It was my revulsion to "peer violence" that led me to creating a strict "no hitting, no teasing" rule in my Sunday School years ago. William Golding made a lasting impression. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That is such a good rule. Although I've personally never encountered the level of bullying I read about in the US, I could imagine how damaging it could be. Surprisingly my specs have never been made fun of; but then I'm Chinese - not wearing glasses would be the oddity! (and before someone says I was stereotyping, there's research that indicates Asian populations have higher occurrence of myopia...) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Larry Craig

2007-08-31T18:34:27Z

ATang:

'''Larry Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

He will end his term in November 2008{{fact}}.

==Controversy==
On August 27, Craig resigned from a prominent role with [[Republican]] [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref>
after reports surfaced about an earlier incident in which he pled guilty to [[disorderly conduct]] after being arrested on a complaint of lewd conduct and alleged sexual solicitation in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html CNN]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]

Larry Craig

2007-08-31T18:33:51Z

ATang: /* Controversy */

'''Larry Craig''' (b. July 20, 1945) has been a [[Republican]] United States Senator from the state of Idaho since 1991. From 1981 to 1991 he represented Idaho in the United States House of Representatives. He is generally considered to be a social conservative and is also a strong advocate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Craig earned his B.A. at the University of Idaho in 1969 and did graduate work at George Washington University 1970. Craig has worked as a farmer and rancher and served in the Idaho senate from 1974-1980.

Craig chaired the Senate Republican Policy Committee (1996-2003), the Special Committee on Aging (One Hundred Eighth Congress), and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (One Hundred Ninth Congress).

He will end his term in November 2008.

==Controversy==
On August 27, Craig resigned from a prominent role with [[Republican]] [[Mitt Romney]]'s presidential campaign<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/08/28/craig/?rsssource=1</ref>
after reports surfaced about an earlier incident in which he pled guilty to [[disorderly conduct]] after being arrested on a complaint of lewd conduct and alleged sexual solicitation in a men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html CNN]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, Larry}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-31T18:10:14Z

ATang: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's also a simpler world back then - less to learn, less preparation, and there's also fewer opportunities to escape the class you're born in. Now, we need 12 years of primary and secondary school, just to get a mediocre, blue-collar job. Four years of university for a middle-class position, not to mention masters and PhD's. There's so much more to learn that kids can "afford" to delay learning concepts vitally needed in order to sustain themselves in the real world (i.e. responsibility) - and in today's world parents are also spending less time with their kids! Because the delayed "release" into the real world, kids nowadays are mentally younger while biologically older. (From what I've seen, those who get a job early learn responsibility and maturity much, much quicker than those who don't) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So what plays would you have them study, Pach? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: And as a corollary... should Othello, MacBeth, Odyssey, Illiad all be banned from schools as well? Lord of the Flies? All of these contain a lot of violence (and racism too). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. There must be mountains of material that is artistic, educational and wholesome. When I was at school, we did R&J, and worse still, were instructed to see the film (Zefirelli version), which led to regrettable impurity of thought. So I know whereof I speak. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the essence of any literary work is conflict, so what would you have high school students reading? I'm a librarian myself, I'm not sure there are 'mountains' of young adult literature that don't contain violence or difficult choices about sexuality. I ask again...what specific works of fiction would you assign teenagers to read? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:53, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

: The less racy Jane Austen novels might be a good place to start. ''Sense and Sensibility'' is one of the more moral of them. Anything from the Elizabethan/Jacobean canon is likely to be regrettably carnal. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Older teens can read [[Hamlet]]. It has suicide, murder, accusations of incest, dueling. It has two cases of poisoning (Prince Hamlet's father King Hamlet murdered; King Claudius attempts to poison the prince but kills his mother by mistake). Then there's the "lie between your legs (c'untry matters)" stuff. Shakespeare would have been rated R back then. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I certainly think that misbehaving teens should be made to sit through a Shakespeare comedy. That'd learn them. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow, I simply cannot see how you could ban all those works from schools. The biggest lessons I learned from Othello, R&J, and Lord of the Flies is the ugly sides of human nature - and all three of the works express the tragedy that will result. No way that could be seen as promoting the acts depicted in the works. The death of Piggy didn't prompt me to push someone off a cliff - it's such a reinforcement that that was wrong! [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-31T17:45:49Z

ATang: /* Nay */

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's also a simpler world back then - less to learn, less preparation, and there's also fewer opportunities to escape the class you're born in. Now, we need 12 years of primary and secondary school, just to get a mediocre, blue-collar job. Four years of university for a middle-class position, not to mention masters and PhD's. There's so much more to learn that kids can "afford" to delay learning concepts vitally needed in order to sustain themselves in the real world (i.e. responsibility) - and in today's world parents are also spending less time with their kids! Because the delayed "release" into the real world, kids nowadays are mentally younger while biologically older. (From what I've seen, those who get a job early learn responsibility and maturity much, much quicker than those who don't) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So what plays would you have them study, Pach? [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: And as a corollary... should Othello, MacBeth, Odyssey, Illiad all be banned from schools as well? Lord of the Flies? All of these contain a lot of violence (and racism too). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Computer

2007-08-31T17:10:19Z

ATang: Analogue computers exist.

A '''computer''' is a machine that is designed to perform [[mathematical]] calculations. Most computers manipulate data in the form of [[binary|binary code]], which consists of 1s and 0s.
[[Image:Babbage.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.]]
The world's first computer was built by [[Charles Babbage]] in 1833, which he called the '''Analytical Engine'''. It was powered by steam and could perform basic arithmetic calculations with accuracy up to six decimal places. It also featured a 'bit bucket' in the back that collected discarded and malformed bits resulting from the calculations; this bucket had to be emptied on a weekly basis. Charles Babbage's wife [[Ada Augusta]], whom operated the Analytical Engine, is considered to be the world's first [[computer programmer]].

Prior to the advent of computing machines, a ''computer'' was a human being who performed complex mathematical calculations.

==References==
http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/126/lectures/history.html

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:computer science]]

Programming language

2007-08-31T17:08:10Z

ATang:

A '''Programming Language''' is a small set of words and syntactic rules that allow people to write computer programs. When the [[Computer Program]] is executed by a [[computer]], it will follow the instructions and perform the requested work. Many different programming languages have been defined. Some are general-purpose and some are specific to a particular problem domain. However, programming languages evolve over time and usually become more general-purpose. For instance, the [[BASIC Programming Language]] and the [[Pascal Programming Language]] were originally intended as teaching languages, for students of programming. But both are now popular as general-purpose languages. The features of most modern programming languages are similar, but the words and syntax differ. For instance, the PRINT statement is used to output data in BASIC, whereas WRITELN is used for the same purpose in Pascal. Even when the words and syntax are similar between two languages, often the meaning (semantics) is different.

Unlike human languages, computer languages are much smaller (having grammars of around two dozen words) and define meanings more precisely.

The first programming language was A-0, developed in 1951.

==Implementation of Programming Languages==
A set of instructions written in a programming language is called '''source code''', or simply '''code'''. In order for a computer to execute a program, another program must be used to prepare the source for execution. '''Interpreters''' translate the source code into '''machine code''' as the program executes. '''Compilers''' and '''Assemblers''' convert the source code into machine code once, and the computer can run the machine code any number of times. This makes compiled code run faster than interpreted code, usually by a factor of about 10.

==Distinguishing Features==
Programming languages can be divided into '''declarative''' and '''procedural''' languages. Declarative languages define information such as relationships and attributes. Modula is an example of a declarative language. Procedural languages define processes (algorithms) for the computer to follow. C is an example of a procedural language.

Languages can also be divided into '''low-level languages''' such as Assembly, and '''high-level languages''' such as COBOL. Low-level languages are those where the program code interacts directly (or fairly directly), with the CPU, whereas high-level languages have a higher level of abstraction, leaving the compiler or interpreter to deal with issuing the appropriate commands to the CPU, and similar issues.

The level of a language is a sliding scale, with some languages considered more high-level than others. Low-level langauges tend to require more steps to accomplish the same tasks than high-level languages. [[Assembly Language]] is not '''a''' specific language, such as BASIC, but rather any of a group of languages that are each specific to a particular [[CPU]].

Most, if not all, high-level languages support the following features: sub-routines (functions and procedures), variables, flow-control, data types, I/O, arithmetic operations, string operations, dynamic allocation (heaps), arrays, structures, constants, and literals. Unique features of some languages will find their way into other languages if the feature is generally useful, or will remain unique to the language otherwise. An example of a feature that has not received widespread acceptance is '''sets'''.

'''Objects''' are a means of encapsulating data and algorithms that operate on that data, with polymorphism. Originally specified in SmallTalk, objects became popular with the advent of C++. Many languages which originally did not support objects have since acquired them. For instance [[Visual BASIC]] is a version of BASIC supporting objects. Likewise, [[Borland Delphi]] is a version of Pascal supporting objects.

==Language List==
Most of the program code in use today is written in C, C++, COBOL, and Java. Other popular general-purpose languages include BASIC, Pascal, and C#. There are literally thousands of programming languages, although many of them are simply variants of others. Variants are called '''dialects'''. Thus, Visual BASIC is a dialect of BASIC.

The following is a sample list of programming languages.

A-0

Ada

ALGOL

APL

Assembly

BASIC

C

C++

C#

COBOL

D

Euclid

FORTRAN

Galaxy

IITRAN

Java

Javascript

Jovial

LISP

Modula 2

MUMPS

Oberon

Pascal

PL/I

Prolog

RPG

Sirius

SmallTalk

SNOBOL

YACC

==References==
[http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/adw/programming_languages.shtml The History of Computer Programming Languages]
[http://people.ku.edu/~nkinners/LangList/Extras/langlist.htm The Language List]

[[Category:Information technology]]
[[Category:computer science]]

Talk:Larry Craig

2007-08-31T17:06:31Z

ATang: /* Ending His Term, November */

What a deceitful person. -[[User:Wwwknow|Wwwknow]] 21:40, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:What are you suggesting, that he be impeached? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

No. The Constitution limits impeachment only for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And let's be practical: Craig would resign before he's impeached.-[[User:Wwwknow|Wwwknow]] 20:37, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:But's only about sex, and there seems to rampant and rabid anti-gay sentiment behind much of this criticism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not only about sex, actually. The real problem with Craig is, I believe, that he keeps lying to the public. I mean, if he's gay he should admit it, simply because there's enough evidence and because he's a public figure, and put an end to this sory. --[[User:Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] 10:10, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Can we shorten the bathroom incident? Or should we expand on his "I am not gay" comment?

He could have meant:
#I didn't stare through the door or tap with my foot at all. The whole thing is a false report by the cop.
#I was soliciting male-on-male sex, but my "[[sexual identity]]" is neither [[homosexual]] nor [[bisexual]].

Many men who have sex with other men make a big deal out of denying their [[homosexuality]]. This seems to be based on a sharp distinction between [[homosexual behavior]], i.e., two males being sexual together, and [[homosexual identity]]. I'm not sure why this matters. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Ending His Term, November ==

Is that phrase accurate? Reason I ask is that it was added by someone later blocked for "silliness". [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Who knows? I only go by what I read in the press. Here what appeared in ''Forbes'' magazine:
:*Minutes after he was arrested for lewd conduct, Sen. Larry Craig denied soliciting an undercover officer for sex in a men's bathroom and pleaded, "I'm not gay. I don't do these kinds of things." [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/31/ap4071387.html]
:I don't think ''Forbes'' would print a remark out of silliness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Oh no, I meant the sentence [[User: Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] added: "He will end his term in November 2008." [[User: Whiteflower|Whiteflower]] was blocked later for "silliness", and I haven't found anything on the web that reflects a resignation or termination date. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 31 August 2007 (EDT)