Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Premiership

2009-03-12T11:57:59Z

AndyJM: Fixing claim about the number of teams promoted/relegated

The Barclays Premiership is the most prestigious of the [[English]] Football Leagues. It contains twenty teams, and after each season the bottom three are relegated and three teams from the next League (the Championship) are promoted.
It operates on a points-based system where a win counts as 3 points, a draw as 1 point and a loss as 0 points. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins; the most recent winners were Manchester United. In the event of a draw on points, goal difference is used to decide the winner.
The Premiership has attracted criticism because the vast majority of the teams stand little chance of winning; the only clubs with a realistic chance of success are Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool, known as the 'Big Four'.
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Dementia

2009-02-24T16:17:33Z

AndyJM: Response to TK.

== Rewrite ==

This article is dire need of a complete rewrite. First of all dementia is not a disease. Second dementia is not commonly known as clinical insanity. The sentence on diagnoses and treatment is completely wrong. The statement on a disproportionate number of scientists etc. suffering from dementia is junk. The final sentence is, to be quite honest, offensive. I'll work on rewriting the article. I might even source the claims I add to the article, something that the original authors couldn't be bothered doing in a clear violation of the Conservapedia commandments.

I apologise in advance for the tone of these comments but I cannot think why someone would write such tripe about such an important subject without even bothering to look at a single reference. People living with dementia have enough on their plate without the callous and thoughtless assertions of the authors of this article. I shudder to think that someone would look at this article in its current form to find out about dementia. Authors, please engage brain before adding to articles such as this. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 09:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:*Well, take a look at what I found in less than 3 minutes, AndyJM:

'''Dementia'''

Also called: Senility

Dementia is a word for a group of symptoms caused by disorders that affect the brain. '''It is not a specific ''disease'''''. People with dementia may not be able to think well enough to do normal activities, such as getting dressed or eating. They may lose their ability to solve problems or control their emotions. Their personalities may change. They may become agitated or see things that are not there.

Memory loss is a common symptom of dementia. However, memory loss by itself does not mean you have dementia. People with dementia have serious problems with two or more brain functions, such as memory and language.

Many different '''diseases''' can cause dementia, including Alzheimer's disease and stroke. Drugs are available to treat some of these '''diseases'''. While these drugs cannot cure dementia or repair brain damage, they may improve symptoms ''or slow down the '''disease''.'''

[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dementia.html National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke]

And there is--- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia "Symptoms of dementia can be classified as either reversible or irreversible, depending upon the etiology of the '''disease'''. Less than 10 percent of cases of dementia are due to causes which may presently be reversed with treatment. Causes include many different specific '''disease''' processes....."]

:My point is, what with several sources using that word '''disease''' one can understand how a person would be confused, no? You are welcome to improve this article if you want, in fact I hope you will. But you were indeed rather intolerant, in light of what I have just shown you. So your criticism was unfair. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 10:31, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: Very witty TK. I'll do my best with the article :) [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Dementia

2009-02-24T14:41:53Z

AndyJM: Problems with this article

This article is dire need of a complete rewrite. First of all dementia is not a disease. Second dementia is not commonly known as clinical insanity. The sentence on diagnoses and treatment is completely wrong. The statement on a disproportionate number of scientists etc. suffering from dementia is junk. The final sentence is, to be quite honest, offensive. I'll work on rewriting the article. I might even source the claims I add to the article, something that the original authors couldn't be bothered doing in a clear violation of the Conservapedia commandments.

I apologise in advance for the tone of these comments but I cannot think why someone would write such tripe about such an important subject without even bothering to look at a single reference. People living with dementia have enough on their plate without the callous and thoughtless assertions of the authors of this article. I shudder to think that someone would look at this article in its current form to find out about dementia. Authors, please engage brain before adding to articles such as this. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 09:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-02-20T19:33:36Z

AndyJM: Correcting error in table. Please use the preview feature in future!

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1965
|
|-
|American dream
|1911 (OED)<ref>OED refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|bailout
|1951
|The verbal form ''to bail out'' (in a figurative sense, which is meant here) dates from the 1580s. The literal sense is somewhat earlier. <ref>OED, ''bail, v1''</ref>
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[Democide]]
|
|Not in dictionary. Describes [[kill]]ing of people by a [[government]].
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|[[Fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist [[party]].
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach;
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|interventionalism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in poloitical affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated at the [[liberal]] [[University of Madison-Wisconsin]] to enforce liberal orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of liberals.<ref>But see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the third most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster, Encyclopedia.com has an anti-American version <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-waronterrorism.html war on terrorism] Encyclopedia.com</ref> February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|5
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|12
|-
|1900s
|17
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|[[term limits]]
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|
|-
|"[[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]]"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1832
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|[[People are animals|people are animals]]
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] without logical meaning
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|}

== New Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|[[RADAR|radar]]
|1940
|Acronym of "Radio Detection and Ranging"; inclusion here being challenged on talk page
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Proportional representation

2009-02-20T19:14:21Z

AndyJM: Explanation of quota figure.

== Single transferable vote==

In the example given the quota should be 10,001 votes. Since there were 30,000 votes in total and 2 seats up for grabs, if two candidates each get 10,001 votes that only leaves 9,998 votes for all the other candidates. Hence no other candidate could possibly get more votes than the two who got 10,001 votes. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 14:14, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Proportional representation

2009-02-20T19:11:12Z

AndyJM: Sorry, this was my error originally. Please see the talk page.

'''Proportional representation''' is when the delegates in a [[presidential primary]] are prorated based on the percentage of votes received. Usually there is a minimum threshold, which is usually 15%, that must be achieved to receive any delegates.

==As an Electoral System==
===Proportional Representation===
'''Proportional representation''' (PR) also refers to the [[electoral system]] whereby Parliamentary (or similar) seats are allocated to parties, based upon the percentage of the total vote each party garners in an election.

It has the advantage that the views of the electorate are more clearly expressed at the ballot box. For example, if under a "first-past-the-post" system a party wins 80 of 100 seats, by a small margin (say 51% to 49% per constituency), then they will hold 80% of the seats, despite garnering only 51% of the vote, leaving many voters feeling disenfranchised. Under proportional representation, they would still have won the election, but with broader representation from voters who did not support the winning party (in this case 51 seats to 49 seats).

The disadvantage of this is that there is less accountability between elected representatives and their constituencies. This is due to the fact that "election lists" are drawn up by the political parties themselves and there is no opportunity for unhappy voters to vote out non-performing representatives.<ref>http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/sou3.htm</ref>

Other advantages include the fact that fewer votes might be spoilt, as every vote counts and there are no "safe" constituencies and minority parties stand a greater chance of representation. However, it also demands a far greater level of voter knowledge and participation, which could discourage potential voters.

Many new third-world democracies have based their elections on the PR system, and [[South Africa]] switched from a constituency system to PR for their democratic elections in 1994. Representatives of [[Japan]]'s [[National Diet]] comprise a mixture of those elected by their constituencies and those allocated seats due to PR.

===Single Transferable Vote===

Another variation on proportional representation is the '''single transferable vote'''. In this system voters rank the candidates in order of preference. A candidate is deemed elected once they obtain a certain quota of votes. The quota is determined by taking the total number of valid votes, dividing it by the number of seats plus one and then adding one vote to the answer. For example if there are 2 seats and total poll of 30,000 votes the quota will be 10,001 votes. The assignment of votes to each candidate proceeds as a number of counts. First the number of first preference votes for each candidate are counted. Any candidate who passes the quota is deemed elected and their surplus votes are distributed among the other candidates based on the second preferences. If no candidate is elected the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are distributed. This procedure is repeated until all the seats are filled. Ireland uses the single transferable vote in all elections.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[category:Political Terms]]

Proportional representation

2009-02-20T15:51:58Z

AndyJM: Ooops!

'''Proportional representation''' is when the delegates in a [[presidential primary]] are prorated based on the percentage of votes received. Usually there is a minimum threshold, which is usually 15%, that must be achieved to receive any delegates.

==As an Electoral System==
'''Proportional representation'' also refers to the [[electoral system]] whereby Parliamentary (or similar) seats are allocated to parties, based upon the percentage of the total vote each party garners in an election.

It has the advantage that the views of the electorate are more clearly expressed at the ballot box. For example, if under a "first-past-the-post" system a party wins 80 of 100 seats, by a small margin (say 51% to 49% per constituency), then they will hold 80% of the seats, despite garnering only 51% of the vote, leaving many voters feeling disenfranchised. Under proportional representation, they would still have won the election, but with broader representation from voters who did not support the winning party (in this case 51 seats to 49 seats).

The disadvantage of this is that there is less accountability between elected representatives and their constituencies. This is due to the fact that "election lists" are drawn up by the political parties themselves and there is no opportunity for unhappy voters to vote out non-performing representatives.<ref>http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/sou3.htm</ref>

Other advantages include the fact that fewer votes might be spoilt, as every vote counts and there are no "safe" constituencies and minority parties stand a greater chance of representation. However, it also demands a far greater level of voter knowledge and participation, which could discourage potential voters.

Another variation on proportional representation is the single transferable vote. In this system voters rank the candidates in order of preference. A candidate is deemed elected once they obtain a certain quota of votes. The quota is determined by taking the total number of valid votes, dividing it by the number of seats plus one and then adding one vote to the answer. For example if there are 2 seats and total poll of 30,000 votes the quota will be 10,001 votes. The assignment of votes to each candidate proceeds as a number of counts. First the number of first preference votes for each candidate are counted. Any candidate who passes the quota is deemed elected and their surplus votes are distributed among the other candidates based on the second preferences. If no candidate is elected the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are distributed. This procedure is repeated until all the seats are filled. Ireland uses the single transferable vote in all elections.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[category:Political Terms]]

Proportional representation

2009-02-20T15:51:00Z

AndyJM: /* As an Electoral System */

'''Proportional representation''' is when the delegates in a [[presidential primary]] are prorated based on the percentage of votes received. Usually there is a minimum threshold, which is usually 15%, that must be achieved to receive any delegates.

==As an Electoral System==
'''Proportional representation'' also refers to the [[electoral system]] whereby Parliamentary (or similar) seats are allocated to parties, based upon the percentage of the total vote each party garners in an election.

It has the advantage that the views of the electorate are more clearly expressed at the ballot box. For example, if under a "first-past-the-post" system a party wins 80 of 100 seats, by a small margin (say 51% to 49% per constituency), then they will hold 80% of the seats, despite garnering only 51% of the vote, leaving many voters feeling disenfranchised. Under proportional representation, they would still have won the election, but with broader representation from voters who did not support the winning party (in this case 51 seats to 49 seats).

The disadvantage of this is that there is less accountability between elected representatives and their constituencies. This is due to the fact that "election lists" are drawn up by the political parties themselves and there is no opportunity for unhappy voters to vote out non-performing representatives.<ref>http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/sou3.htm</ref>

Other advantages include the fact that fewer votes might be spoilt, as every vote counts and there are no "safe" constituencies and minority parties stand a greater chance of representation. However, it also demands a far greater level of voter knowledge and participation, which could discourage potential voters.

Another variation on proportional representation is the single transferable vote. In this system voters rank the candidates in order of preference. A candidate is deemed elected once they obtain a certain quota of votes. The quota is determined by taking the total number of valid votes, dividing it by the number of seats plus one and then adding one vote to the answer. For example if there are 2 seats and total poll of 30,000 votes the quota will be 15,001 votes. The assignment of votes to each candidate proceeds as a number of counts. First the number of first preference votes for each candidate are counted. Any candidate who passes the quota is deemed elected and their surplus votes are distributed among the other candidates based on the second preferences. If no candidate is elected the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are distributed. This procedure is repeated until all the seats are filled. Ireland uses the single transferable vote in all elections.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:United States Government]]
[[category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-02-18T15:47:53Z

AndyJM: /* Words? */

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Misleading political terms

2009-02-18T14:20:17Z

AndyJM: Adding DPRK

*Nanking Self-Government Committee - actually a brutal puppet government created by Japanese occupation forces. [http://www.gendercide.org/case_nanking.html]
*Democratic People's Republic of Korea - undemocratic dictatorship.
[[Category:Political Terms]]

Opera

2009-02-18T13:00:34Z

AndyJM: Undo revision 626653 by Ajhthompson (Talk) The article contains no info about the browser hence link not appropriate.

An '''opera''' is a dramatic work in which the performers sing all or most of their lines. It is a staged narrative fusion of music, drama (or comedy, or both) and spectacle, with the emphasis on the music.

An opera can last for five hours or more ([[Richard Wagner|Wagner]]’s “''Mastersingers of Nuremberg''”) or under ten minutes ([[Darius Milhaud]]’s “''The Deliverance of Theseus''”; have a cast of hundreds ([[Giuseppe Verdi|Verdi]]’s “''Aida''” – with or without the [[elephant]]s) or just a handful ([[Samuel Barber]]’s “''A Hand of Bridge''”; can be a story from the start of the world (Eugen D'Albert’s “''Cain''”) or its end (Wagner’s “''Götterdämmerung''”); historical ([[Handel]]’s “''Julius Caesar''”) or topical ([[John Adams]]’ “''Nixon in China''”), for children (“''Hansel and Gretel''”) or adults (“''Salome''”); the fantasmagorical ([[Mozart]]’s “''The Magic Flute''”) or of real and grubby life [[Alban Berg]]’s “''Lulu''”).

Many of the works of the world’s great writers have been adapted for the operatic stage – from [[Shakespeare]] (“''[[Macbeth]]''”, “''[[Hamlet]]''”, “''[[The Merry Wives of Windsor]]''”, “''A Midsummer Night’s Dream''” and more.) [[John Bunyan]] (“''The Pilgrim’s Progress''”), Aleksandr Pushkin (“''Eugene Enegin''” “''Boris Godunov''” etc.), [[Tolstoy]] “''War and Peace''”) [[Goethe]] (“''Faust''”) and many more.

Opera as we know it grew out of court entertainment in [[Renaissance]] [[Italy]]. It was a logical progression from the [[madrigal]], by then at its highest point, as a vehicle for dramatic expression in both solo and ensemble singing accompanied by an “orchestra” – although it would be considered to be a chamber ensemble today. There were already masques and miracle plays and other stage entertainments with sets and costumes but the year 1600 is generally regarded as the time of opera’s birth. The first opera that is still performed today is [[Claudio Monteverdi]]’s “''L’Orfeo''”, (1607) that age-old favourite tale of Orpheus and Euridice (in this case given a happy ending). It consisted of solo and choral arias (airs or songs) sung to a narrative and with scenery, but performed in a series of tableaux. There was not a lot of walking about.

By the end of the 17th century a definite divergence can be heard between Italian and French “styles”. Italy had settled on a three-movement [[overture]] followed by 3 acts of “action” with recitatives and arias interspersed with duets or choral pieces…all still fairly formal and declamatory. The French, where the leading figure was the court musician and composer, [[Jean-Baptiste Lully]], and financed by the royal court, operas contained extremely extravagant sets, sound effects and costumes, and had 5 acts of mythological or classical stories, frequently adapted to bask the king himself in their glow. However, the greatest opera of the late 1600s, and the one frequently performed today, was the Englishman [[Henry Purcell]]’s “''Dido and Aeneas''”.

The first half of the 18th century, the “high [[baroque]] period, saw a golden age of opera. [[Handel|G.F. Handel]] alone staged nearly 50 operas, quite a few of which are performed today; [[Vivaldi]], well ''over'' 50. [[Jean Philippe Rameau]] was writing operas with ballet scenes and orchestral interludes of “pure” music that looked forward to the great music dramas of the next century and have been taken out of their context to be heard today in concerts and on record as stand-alone pieces or [[suite]]s. (The music of this period, whether it be opera, orchestral, song, or sacred, is the earliest to generally sound “normal” to the modern untrained listener, even if it is played on authentic instruments in its original style.)

By this time the age of the singer-as-star had arrived – and with it the need for music to match the vanities of this pampered breed: the big aria. Also, by this time, opera had settled into a sort of institutionalised rigidity with a recitative followed by an aria (usually “da capo” – the first theme is repeated at the end, but with embellishments and flourishes) not necessarily having much to do with the flow of the story.

The second half of the 18th century, in opera, belongs to two composers. In 1762 Christophe Willibald [[Gluck]] wrote “''Orpheo et Euridice''”, the first of his “reform” operas. There is a simplicity and clarity in this work not seen before in opera (he had done much the same thing to ballet the year before with “''Don Juan''” - the two actually share some storm music.) The arias were part of the narrative instead of the story going “on hold” whilst singers let loose their virtuosity to an admiring, though increasingly bored public – opera suddenly became a truly dramatic art form with the music serving the poetry, the narrative and the tension between characters.

Gluck’s innovations were continued by the great W. A. [[Mozart]]. There are half a dozen or so operas by this giant that at or near the top of the operatic pile. Somewhere in the world today a major opera house is preparing for, or performing, one of these works written within the ten years from 1781, starting with “I''domeneo''” and finishing with the fantastical, lyrical and wondrously entertaining “''The Magic Flute''”. “''Don Giovanni''” is generally considered his best, and is the earliest opera to have remained constantly in the repertoire unchanged from its inception (1787).

The first half of the 19th century saw [[Beethoven]]’s only opera, “''Fidelio''”, the rise of “bel canto” (literally “beautiful singing”, exemplified by the prodigious [[Gioacchino Rossini]], and his more serious Italian compatriots Bellini and Donizetti), and the advent of the [[Romantic period (music)| romantic]] era, generally held to be introduced by [[Carl Maria von Weber]]’s “''Der Freishütz''” in 1821. French opera was fortunate to be served by a series of first rate works – still regularly performed – by Meyerbeer (German born, but all his major works written and performed in Paris); [[Hector Berlioz]] and Daniel Auber. A younger generation kept the tricolour flying: [[Georges Bizet]] wrote what is possibly the most popular opera of all time, “''Carmen''” and possibly the most popular duet (”''In the Depths of the Temple''” from “''The Pearlfishers''”). Russian opera made its international debut with [[Glinka]]’s “''A Life for the Tsar''” followed by the still extremely popular “''Russlan and Ludmila''” . A later generation of Russian nationalists (Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov) and the [[Bohemia]]ns [[Bedrich Smetana]] and [[Antonin Dvorak]] wrote operas reflecting the life, history or traditions of their regions in a tradition that would continue into the 20th century with [[Leos Janacek]].

During the 19th century a lighter form of opera appeared, variously called “opera buffo”, “opera comique”, operetta, depending on the time and place. [[Jacques Offenbach]] is generally considered the “inventor" of this genre, but it appeared under many guises: the Viennese operettas of the [[Johann Strauss|Strauss]] family and others, the operettas of [[Gilbert and Sullivan]], the Spanish and Latin American “zarzuela”, finally popping up in America with the productions of Victor Herbert, Sigmund Romberg and the like, before transforming into the form known to all as, just,” the musical”

The two giants of 19th century opera began work in the 1830s. [[Richard Wagner]]’s first successful opera “''Rienzi''” and [[Giuseppe Verdi]]’s “''Nabucco''” both had their first performances in 1842. Between them they would dominate the operatic world for the next 50 years. Verdi, in a string of works, most of which are household names, continued the Italian operatic tradition, although the recitative could now be as tuneful as the aria. His plots came from all directions; history, [[Shakespeare]], Dumas, Schiller, Victor Hugo, the [[Bible]], and his characters from all parts of society.

[[Richard Wagner]] hauled opera off into a new place. The recitative disappeared, as did the aria to some extent, to be replaced by a sort of “constant music”, dominated by previously unheard orchestral textures and harmonies and the use of the “leitmotif”, whereby each character or scene in the opera is “identified” by a musical phrase introduced with their first appearance. The characters, the voice, the orchestra, the scenery, the complete fabric of the opera, were treated as a whole, which he called “Music Drama”.

The 20th century, it seems, was not fond of comedy. Starting at the end of the previous century with the “''verismo''” operas of [[Pietro Mascagni]], [[Ruggero Leoncavallo]] and the incomparable [[Giacomo Puccini]] the great operas of the century are nearly all miserable. Love rarely prevailed. Humour appears occasionally ([[Sergei Prokofiev|Prokofiev]]’s “''A Love for Three Oranges''”, [[Dmitri Shostakovich| Shostakovich]]’s “''The Nose''”, "''Der Rosenkavalier''" of [[Richard Strauss]], (normally almost mini-Wagnerian in his treatments); but most of the great genuinely 20th century operas, starting with [[Claude Debussy]]’s “''Pelléas and Mélisande''” including the groundbreaking works of the Englishman [[Benjamin Britten]] (“''Peter Grimes''”, “''Billy Budd''” “''The Turn of the Screw''”, “''Death in Venice''”) were dark. (There are exceptions: Britten wrote an operatic version of “''A Midsummer Night’s Dream''", and operas for children). Late in the century topical concerns prevailed: the [[American]] [[minimalist]], [[John Adams]] wrote “''Nixon in China''” and “''The Death of Klinghoffer''” (based on the PLO terrorists’ hijacking of the cruise liner, “Achille Lauro” in 1985).

Opera is still popular despite attempts by some on both sides of the artistic divide to divorce it entirely from popular culture. The popularity of [[Luciano Pavarotti]], and so-called “crossover” artists like Katherine Jenkins and [[Paul Potts]] testifies to this. Opera houses still get by, despite the enormous costs of producing works like “''Aida''” or “''War and Peace''”. Operas are still being written; not always to critical acclaim – it must be remembered, though, that Bizet died believing that ''Carmen'' was a complete failure.

== See also ==

*[[Luciano Pavarotti]]

[[Category:Musical Genres]]
[[Category:Opera]]

Opera Software

2009-02-18T12:59:11Z

AndyJM: Deleting all content. Copied from Wikipedia.

Connaught

2009-02-18T12:36:45Z

AndyJM: Creating redirect

#REDIRECT [[Connacht]]

Munster

2009-02-18T12:31:23Z

AndyJM: Typo

''For the city in north-west Germany, see [[Münster]]''

'''Munster''' is one of the four traditional provinces of [[Ireland]], alongside [[Ulster]], [[Leinster]] and [[Connaught]]. It occupies the south-western part of Ireland, and is made up of the Counties Clare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford. The largest city is [[Cork]], and it is also home to [[Limerick]].

[[Category:Ireland]]

User talk:RSchlafly

2009-02-16T13:38:40Z

AndyJM: /* Continuum */ new section

<big>'''ARCHIVES:'''</big> '''[[User talk:RSchlafly/Archive1|1]]'''

== Clean ==

Enjoy your nice, clean talk page! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear RSchlafly,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other interent websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:52, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''

== 1992 Election ==

Nice revert. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:51, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting more than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for adding the percentage on that election. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Catch-22==

Which novel are you referring to 'published ten years earlier' on the Catch-22 page? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

: See [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980428/ai_n10413175] or [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20561858.html]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:21, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article, in this case [[kluge]]. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 02:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

==Theory and Fact==
Please try and remain civil when it comes to altering other people's edits - there was no reason to refer to the information as "junk". If you thought it was verbose you could have just said so. Regardless, I am going to reinsert some information in a less confounding way. At the moment the flimsy terse mention of biological evolution in the article is insufficient for anyone to understand the what is considered fact and what is considered theory. It's a great example for the article. However, I don't want an edit war so my changes will only be minute at first. Regards. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:19, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: I was civil. If I thought that verbosity were the problem, I would have said so. The reinserted text is wrong and confusing. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

: Absolutely not. There is nothing wrong with the information. If you have counter evidence regarding Modern synthesis or that evolutionists refer to the science as both a fact and theory, then that would be one thing. However, based on your actions, I can only presume that you simply don't want the information posted. Things aren't incorrect simply because you say so. If you require sources I'd be more than happy to supply them - but by dismissing the information, removing it without notification and referring to it as "junk" is slightly inflammatory. At least that's how I'm taking it. My edits are in good faith and meant to help the project of conservapedia. If you doubt this at all, just look at my edit history. Anyway, it would have been better had you and I discussed the changes first. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Your presumptions are incorrect. Evidence for and against the modern synthesis is irrelevant. The article is just about some simple definitions. I have posted on the Talk pages an example of how your own text contradicts your own sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

== [[Twin Primes]] question ==
Roger, do you think there are an [[infinite]] number of [[twin primes]]? Do you think it is provable (though obviously not proven yet)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

: I would guess yes, but until someone solves the problem, no one knows for sure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:53, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

*Roger....that is what they are still saying about being able to teach me Trig! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:16, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Shawshank Redemption ==
[http://www.shawshankredemption.net/books/the-shawshank-redemption-plot.html]"A new prisoner called Tommy comes to Shawshank prison. '''Tommy tells another prisoner, who tells Andy, that Tommy had had a cellmate at a different prison who bragged about killing a rich golfer and some hot-shot banker's wife, and the banker getting jailed for it. This is clearly the real killer of Andy's wife.''' Andy sees the possibility of a new trial since this evidence would prove his innocence. Warden Norton dismisses the story, telling Andy to ignore this made up story. When Andy argues with him warden Norton sends Andy to solitary confinement, to remind Andy of his place in the prison hierarchy." --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:22, 8 September 2007 (EDT)[

: That is just an argument for a court action. Nowhere does the movie say that Andy was innocent, or that he was wrongly convicted. If Andy is innocent, as you say, then for what is he being redeemed? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::I will email Steven King and ask, Roger. I just remember it from the book and movie, is all....so it must have been important to the story, otherwise I would imagine King would have snipped it. Argument for a court action? Lawyers have enough business! The way he was given the news, not expecting it, nor thinking it was coming, seems to indicate he wasn't looking for a ploy. I will revert myself back in the movie list, if you haven't already, pending my hearing back from King. Fair enough? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:35, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether Andy was expecting the news, or looking for a ploy, is irrelevant. He is likely to jump on any opportunity to get out of prison. The beginning of the movie show overwhelming evidence against Andy in court. It avoids showing the murderer when the trigger is pulled. Apparently the movie wanted to create some ambiguity. My question for you: Under your interpretation, what is the "redemption" of the title? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:24, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Redemption comes in many packages, I have found. Perhaps the humanity, the ability of some to maintain and even nurture the type of complex "friendship" (humanity) that the characters actually developed, in spite of their circumstances, is the "redemption". Writers speak constantly in metaphors, and not all of them built on sound ground, but in some loose manner, the characters were role-reversed, eh? The prison guard in his own prison, without walls, and the inmate in an actual one, yet actually more free? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:16, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

==Vandal==

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 22:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==Don Imus Edits==
When you remove the specific insults that Imus used, you remove the whole point of caring about things like racism and sexism. I suppose what you're suggesting is that those two things (racism and sexism) are acceptable? Perhaps we should just overlook them? If we are to learn anything from what Mr. Imus said and what happened to him as a result, we need to know exactly WHY he was fired. Now that he's been rehired by conservative bastion 770 WABC in New York, has the conservative agenda been amended to include "protect Imus?"

Again, when you remove what he said from the article, you remove any idea about how WRONG what he said was. This seems to me to be an attempt to soft-soap a racist, sexist comment. I wonder why you wish to do this. Perhaps you, yourself, agree with Mr. Imus' statements? Do YOU believe that the Rutgers University Ladies Basketball Team is a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes?" This seems a gross and base mischaracterization of a group of ladies I'm sure you are not personally acquainted with.

Since Conservapedia makes the claim that it is non-biased, and that it is supposedly the alternative to the liberal-biased WikiPedia (and the accuracy of that assessment is something I leave to another debate at another time), WHY, sir, have you seemingly attempted to slant things to FAVOR a radio personality who made RACIST and SEXIST remarks and who is employed by a major conservative media outlet?

I await your response, sir, with something approaching eagerness.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 19:00, 27 January 2008 (EDT)

: I did not remove the quote. It was someone else. You are complaining to the wrong guy. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Since there was no contribution between mine and yours, sir, I feel that you are fibbing. Peruse the history of the Don Imus page and see. Perhaps someone else made the revision and used your name? Unlikely. My only conclusion is that you or someone using your name condones institutional racism and sexism in the mainstream media. If this is true of you, you ought to be ashamed. If it is someone else using your name, you ought to be outraged. Either way, at least ACT like you care.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 15:30, 29 January 2008 (EDT)

: I checked the history. You inserted the quote here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Don_Imus&diff=378862&oldid=288654] and it was removed by [User:Iduan], not me. I merely shortened your mischaracterization of what Imus said. You wrote that Imus "classified a group of female athletes as women of decidedly ill repute". That was just not correct. Imus did not say that anyone had ill repute. Please do not make false accusations against either Don Imus or me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

How did I make false accusations against Don Imus? He called those women "nappy-headed hoes." Where I come from, "nappy-headed" is meant as an insult against the typically tightly-curled African-American hair type. "Ho," in common use, is slang for a "whore" or "prostitute," which, when you clean it up for the good old "family-friendly" Conservapedia, means "woman of ill repute."
So, to insult typically African-American hair type, and to call these women "prostitutes," hmmm, I dunno, seems like RACISM and SEXISM to me. One doesn't have to be a trust fund baby to deny the truth, but it helps, I suppose. Good day, sir. [[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 16:30, 31 January 2008 (EDT)

: You are welcome to your opinions, but your edit was inaccurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Thanks for the Unblock ==

I do enjoy especially the part of this project which concerns the history of sciences. It just a hobby of mine, and discussions like ours are a welcomed to delve into the literature. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:15, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:RS, check me if I'm wrong, but I'm finding BRichtigen a bit of a distraction. Is he really doing good work somewhere around here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:54, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:: I can't tell if ''you'' are finding him a distraction, but how is that ''his'' fault? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:35, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::chuckle, you make a goood point there --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:38, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: I had some disagreements with BRichtigen, but he is definitely doing good work. Please do not block him. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== question of lawyers responsibility as Officer of the court ==

Hi, is a lawyer who knows his client is guilty still permitted to provide a defense or is he meant as an officer of the court , to plead guilty and attempt to mitigate the sentancing ? I realize there may be a difference between what should happen and what does happen. I lived for a while in Australia and England so it may be an issue of US law vs English .. Thanks oh, this relates to the importance of good character in the appointment of white house counsel [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 21 November 2008 (EST)

: Under US law, the lawyer is required to argue the case however the client wants to plead it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: ok , thanks [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

and I hope the New Year will give us ample opportunity to discuss interesting topics, like we have done this year!
Yours [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 18:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Roger! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:33, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Continuum ==

Hi Roger. Foxtrot and I have been arguing over the Continuum article and we really need someone to step in and mediate. I have a problem with the entire second paragraph really: "The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) continuous set studied by mathematicians. No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order without endpoints. Since the complex numbers add the imaginary number, i, to the real line, this is one reason they have no natural linear order. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed."

First of all the reference to a continuous set is unneccessary. I had never heard of such a thing. When I googled it I saw that it is an obscure notion that has no place in such a short introductory article to the topic. I see no reason to believe that the continuum was called so because it is a continuous set. My best guess is that the use of the word continuum predates the use of the term continuous set.

The second sentence about not being able to add more numbers to the reals is essentially meaningless. What do we mean by number? We are discussing the real line as an order theoretic/topological object. It is easy to extend the reals as such an object with out losing the dense linear order. This ties into the last statement. I outline in http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Continuum&curid=81756&diff=621255&oldid=621024 how to construct the lexicographic order on the complex plane. This refutes the last sentence as such an ordering doesn't use AC. In addition the complex numbers ordered in such a way is, from an order theoretic point of view, <math> \mathfrak{c}</math> many copies of the reals laid out end-to-end (if you get my meaning). This shows that not only can we add a point to the reals we can add uncountably many copies of the reals to the reals without destroying the dense linear ordering.

Thanking you in advance for your time. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Manifold

2009-02-15T18:33:01Z

AndyJM: Undo revision 623621 by JosephineP (Talk)

[[Image:Mobius.png|right|thumb|The [[Möbius strip]] is an example of a 2-manifold.]]
An ''n''-[[dimension]]al '''manifold''' (or ''n''-manifold) ''M'' is a [[topological space]] such that every point in ''M'' has a [[neighbourhood]] that is [[homeomorphism|homeomorphic]] to <math>\mathbb{R}^n</math>. These homeomorphisms induce a [[coordinatization]] of ''M'', and it is further required that the coordinatization is continuous.

An alternate definition constructs the manifolds over the [[complex numbers]] instead of the [[real numbers]]. An ''n''-dimensional complex manifold ''N'' is a [[topological space]] such that every point in ''N'' has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to '''C'''''n'' and whose coordinatization by these homeomorphisms is [[holomorphic]] ([[analytic]]).

Manifolds are [[Hausdorff space|Hausdorff]] and [[2nd-countable space|2nd-countable]].

==Constructing new manifolds from old==

*Suppose that <math>f:R^n \rightarrow R^m</math> is a differentiable function. Then <math>f^{-1}(y)</math> is a smooth manifold if ''y'' is a regular value of ''f''.

[[category: Topology]]

Absolute zero

2009-02-11T16:42:10Z

AndyJM: Typo

'''Absolute zero''' is the minimum [[temperature]], defined as 0 [[kelvin]] on the [[absolute temperature scale]]s (the zero on the Kelvin scale has had to adjust, slightly, as measurements of absolute zero are refined). This corresponds to -273.15 degrees [[Celsius]] and -459.67 degrees [[Fahrenheit]]. At absolute zero, all motion (i.e. the movement of [[molecules]] in a [[gas]], [[atom]]s in a [[crystal]]) would cease.

No place in our universe is at absolute zero, but there are places that get close. [[Outer space|Space]] is approximately 2.73 kelvin. This is not because heat from [[star]]s in the universe keep the temperature up, but because of cosmic background radiation. The [[Cosmic Background Explorer]] (CBE) measured this value. The [[Big Bang theory]] predicts a leftover background radiation and that such radiation would have a relative uniformity, which is reinforced by the evidence presented by the CBE's observations. However, these observations cannot account for the [[horizon problem]].

== Reaching Towards Absolute Zero ==
It is considered theoretically impossible to achieve absolute zero, as an object with this temperature would have a theoretical volume of zero, but scientists have come quite close. The first example of this occurred in 1908 when [[Kammerlingh Onnes]] liquefied [[Helium]]. The temperature he reached was approximately four kelvin. Lower temperatures have been reached with different [[isotope]]s of Helium. A temperature of 0.3 kelvin has been reached with 3He. The lowest temperature ever reached by any substance was 280 picokelvins.

== Sources ==

[http://www.ph.rhul.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html http://www.ph.rhul.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html]
[[category:physics]]

User talk:DeanS

2009-02-11T14:39:48Z

AndyJM: /* Al Gore comic */ new section

Archive:
[[/1|01]]
[[/2|02]]

== Happy New Year, Dean! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:23, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks Terry. Happy New Year to you as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:04, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Images ==

Dean, I saw you protected [[:Image:20080919-2 p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg]] (amongst others). Couldn't we have a a policy of having descriptive file names for images? That image name is not only too long but tells us nothing about the image. If I had been fortunate enough to have merited sysop rights then sorting out the image library would have been my first pet project. I can only hope that some keen adminstrator will try and clean it up. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 10:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:I like your idea BrianCo. Why don't you propose your idea on Andy's talk page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:57, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== upload file not working? ==

the "upload file" command says some sort of "internal error" do you know what's up? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:01, 6 January 2009 (EST)

*Sit tight, the proper authorities have been notified. We regret any inconvenience. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Terry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 03:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::It isn't me, Dean...I am running my new bot, ''Sheriff-bot''. TK will be back later. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:12, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:::Ok. You can tell me about this ''Sheriff-bot'' offline. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 03:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

for helping out with [[Fiji]]! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 08:50, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome Kotomi. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:25, 6 January 2009 (EST)

==Wikiproject:News Wanted Pages==
Let's add the medal people can earn on the page as incentive. Plus, I will attack some more of those words <s>tomorrow</s>Thursday to try and generate interest.--Jpatt 01:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:We could ask Rod Weathers to generate a medal like the others he made. I created a couple of articles tonight. It's good if we're leading the way in creating these articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:41, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Dean, thanks much for your tremendously insightful news posting a few minutes ago. It topped another day of insights on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:31, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:Andy, that insightful post came from ''Jpatt'', one of our new admins. I just made a few small corrections to the news items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 00:03, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Please block ==

Please could you block the blasphemous vandal DanielP? Thanks--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:13, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::No problem - thanks for the swift response. I think AlbertW has reverted most of the vandalism.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:17, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Great block ==

Great block, Dean. No one has to block all the sub-accounts that were just created. The vandal simply wasted his time. You've blocked his IP for those accounts also with your first block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Andy. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:53, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::I don't know that I agree, Andy. The accounts could be used by different IPs and I found that one of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ATimL&year=&month=-1 socks], TimL, made an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gravitation&curid=8247&diff=606088&oldid=604847 edit] almost three hours after DavidJ's IP was blocked. He then got blocked by Dean. So I took the initiative now to block all those socks, just to be safe. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 11:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks, Foxtrot!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Glad to be of service :-) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)
== Governors ==
Thanks for adding on to Washington. Originally I was sticking with just the state governors and not the territorial ones, but I suppose more information is better! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:I first saw the list and noticed Gregoire wasn't on there. Then I saw the full list on the state website and decided to fill in the blanks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::Looks like I found a severely dated source, huh? I'll check more carefully. Thanks again! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== Mainpage picture size, My apologies, no offense intended ==

DeanS,

I did not notice that you had reversed my edits as far as the picture sizes to the main page. I was somewhat tired when I was doing the editing. My apologies.

Secondly, I did not notice that the picture sizes I chose were making the right and left columns unequal in width. For various reasons, I do agree with you that right and left columns on the main page should be somewhat equal in width. Therefore, I made the pictures smaller. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:35, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Thank you Conservative. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:28, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== With Apologies ==
Sorry about the atom article. The formatting seems weird, but I only made it worse. Sorry. I'm a wiki noob.--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 16:20, 13 January 2009 (EST)
:No problem. I recommend using the "Show preview" button before saving. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:42, 13 January 2009 (EST)

==Plane crash story==
Sorry to bother with this, but could someone add a link on this news story to the pilot himself- [[Chesley Sullenberger]]. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for creating the article and the suggestion. Btw, as an admin, you can edit the Main page yourself if you want to. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:29, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::I have been watching this story on our news-stations here. Amazing! Truly miraculous that the pilot bought it down safely and nobody died. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 10:36, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Exactly. Chesley Sullenberger is a true hero. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:42, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks! The page is now at 90 views! Also,I know I can edit the main page, but I could not find where to edit the actual news stories. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:57, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:Try these new instructions: [[Wikiproject:News#Editing_the_.22In_the_News.22_section|Editing the "In the News" section]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:38, 16 January 2009 (EST)

==Help==
A lot of my rosters got deleted and havn't been restored. Could I get some help or at very least an explanation? --[[User:JY23|JY23]] 11:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:In this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Do_I_have_to_rewrite_my_articles.3F section] of Main page talk, Andy explains the problem. If you can give me an example, I will see what I can do. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:00, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::Well, at [[User:JY23/Sports project|my sports project]], I was up to Malaga CF on the rosters. When I logged back on one day, it was stuck on Stoke City (in an entirely different league). [[User:JY23|JY23]] 14:24, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Religion==
A big thank you for deleting that essay. It was horrible from start to finish.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome Jp. We don't need to accept every Essay on Conservapedia. This one was unacceptable. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:44, 2 February 2009 (EST)

==Algebra Terms==
Thanks for deleting the redundant category. It had been cluttering the math pages for a while now! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome. Something still doesn't seem right though. I'm wondering if we even need the [[Algebra terms]] page since the Algebra index is on each of the terms pages. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 07:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::Probably not. There's also a [[geometry terms]] page, which can equally be deleted since there's already a <s>[[:Category:Geometry Terms]]</s> [[:Category:Geometry terms]] which uses Geometry index (and doesn't follow the MoS for categories). Continuing this line of reasoning, are these sorts of indices much more useful than categories? They seem somewhat redundant. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 07:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
:::I think the indices are better than a category of terms for each subject. If you look at Category:Navigation box, you will see there are many different indices, Template:Algebra Index, Template:American Index, Template:Ancient Index, etc. Some of them don't have a subject terms page; they just have individual terms pages (i.e. Ancient Terms, Chemistry Terms, etc.) We should have some further discussions on this subject. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 07:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::I think my wording wasn't clear in it's implication, sorry. I definitely do like indices better than something like [[:Category:Algebra Terms]], but my question was whether we even needed the index if we have the [[:Category:Algebra]], which lists most/all of the terms anyway and has many more to boot. I would gladly keep discussing this with you, either here or by email. Just let me know. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:55, 8 February 2009 (EST)

== Featured article ==

Thank you Dean! Joaquin --[[User:JMR10|JMR10]] 13:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome. Anytime ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 13:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)

==News link==
Dean, thanks for linking my [[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"|Examples of Moronic Vandalism]] essay! That's cool. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:45, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome Addison. I thought it went nicely with Mrs. Schlafly's article. Keep up the great work! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 19:15, 7 February 2009 (EST)

::Thanks! Keep up your great work too! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:10, 7 February 2009 (EST)

==Template==
Dean, I created a template for WikiProjectNews. I added it to the categories pages. I hope I didn't overstep your authority since you created the News Group. I can shorten, add/remove, and I welcome any changes. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks Jp. That template is a great idea. No, you didn't overstep your authority, because you're the co-project leader now. Project members need to get approval before doing things like this, but you or I can make improvements to this project as needed.

:I protected the template because it is policy to protect all templates. You will want to do this in the future.

:I added an "Archives" link and changed the "Previous Breaking News" to "Previous News by Subject".

:I'm thinking about deleting the "Unpublished News" page and the link to "Unpublished News" because we probably won't post this news now that it's really outdated. What do you think? --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Unpublished News could be deleted if you feel that way. Also, I was adding to the top of pages (see) --->
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Dick_Cheney| Previous Breaking News: Dick Cheney]]
|}
:until I realized you had ==See also==. Should I continue or is it redundancy? Makes it more visible but waiting for your thoughts.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 14:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)
::Ok. I will delete the "Unpublished News" page and the template link.
::I think the border version is redundant with the "See Also" wikilink. I also tried to move the ACLU one below the main image but then it wouldn't go to the right even though it was below the image. I think the "See Also" wikilinks should be sufficient. We might want to consider a template in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for deleting all these silly Pokemon pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:34, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:You're welcome. Even though I used to enjoy watching the Pokemon cartoons, I don't think we need all these individual articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:37, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Al Gore comic ==

Hi DeanS. I see that you uploaded the image http://conservapedia.com/Image:Al_and_GW.png. I would have serious reservations about a fair use justification for this image. It is clearly marked copyright. There does not seem to be any discussion or criticism of the image on the page. It serves to illustrate a point about Al Gore. Perhaps it would be worth emailing the copyright holder to ask his permission? His email is gsheffield--@--mediaresearch.org [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 09:39, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Continuum

2009-02-09T20:35:31Z

AndyJM: /* No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. */

I would like to make a change to this article. In the second paragraph the link from continuous goes to an article on continuous functions. However the context in the article is that of a continuous set. I propose adding an article about continuous sets and then linking to that article. Any objections? ([[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 09:00, 12 December 2008 (EST))

Please, before anyone bans me for making the changes that I have made, I ask that you read http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Continuum.html. Thanks! [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:14, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:The <math>\mathfrak{c}</math> is mainly used by topologists--the remaining mathematicians that think about such large cardinalities tend to use the aleph system. But since I doubt we'll get that far into the details on CP, I can agree to that symbol. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:43, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. ==

The article asserts that "No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order." This is not true. I don't know what the author is trying to get at here. Unless anyone has any objections could we please remove this line? If anyone has any doubts about this then here is a proof:

Claim: An additional point can be added to the real line without the line losing its dense linear order.

Proof: Let R denote the real line and < denote its natural linear ordering. Fix x not in R. Let X=R union {x}. Extend the order < on R to a new order <* on all of X as follows:

If a,b are in R then a<*b iff a<b.
If a is in R then a<*x.

All that remains is to show that <* is dense. It is obvious that <* is dense when restricted to R. If a<*x we need to find b such that a<*b<*x. But choosing b=a+1 will suffice. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:I have added the phrase "without [[endpoint]]s", which defeats your reasoning. The complex numbers cannot be linearly ordered naturally; any ordering needs the [[Axiom of Choice]] to be constructed. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:55, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::AndyJM, I do not at all appreciate your reversion without discussion on the talk page. This is not how our wiki works, and based on your past history I'm going to say that you cannot make edits to the mathematics articles without first obtaining approval of your proposed edits from [[User:Aschlafly]], myself or [[User:Ed_Poor]].
::Your second example (mentioned only in the edit summary) is also not a counterexample: the long line needs the uncountable ordinal <math>\omega_1</math> to be constructed. The elements of the long line are not numbers, but cartesian pairs of numbers with infinite ordinals. So the long line cannot possibly be a counterargument to the statement "No additional ''numbers'' may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order." (emph. added) which you removed now for the third time. The fact of the matter is, if you try to include another number into the reals, you will lose the dense linear ordering without endpoints of the reals. So including an imaginary number, for example, destroys the properties of the ordering. This is the issue at the crux of why the complex numbers cannot be linearly ordered without the Axiom of Choice: the additional elements all violate the essential properties of the original, natural ordering of the reals, and you need AC to rectify the situation artificially. Andy, you may be trying hard to insert your Wikipedia bias here, but the beauty of mathematics is that it follows logical reasoning and flawed arguments are often easy to pierce. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)
::: Ok, I'll leave the maths articles alone. I have this last point to make though.
:::The statement "Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the Axiom of Choice to be constructed." is not true. I will demonstrate a linear order < on the complex numbers that doesn't need AC.
:::We define < a linear order on C. Fix a+bi,c+di in the complex plane. Then we define a+bi<c+di iff (b<* d) (where <* is the natural order on the reals) OR (b=d and a<*b). It is easy to verify that this is a linear order on the complex numbers. In fact it is even a dense linear order. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 15:35, 9 February 2009 (EST)

*'''No one given the right to block is going to be issuing instructions about who is allowed to edit, or imposing conditions like the above. That is the exclusive province of Administrators, and we only impose such restrictions after talking about the possibilities with each other. ''You guys work it out amongst yourselves.'' That said, AndyJM, Foxtrot is correct about giving notice, on his user talk page, or here, about reverting major portions. That is simple courtesy. If you have further disputes on math topics, politely ask [[user:RSchlafly|Roger Schlafly]] and see if he will mediate.''' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:20, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Continuum

2009-02-05T19:09:46Z

AndyJM: Removing incorrect statement. The Long line without endpoints is a counterexample to the claim.

Mathematically, '''continuum''' can refer to the [[Real_line|real line]], its [[Cardinality|cardinality]] <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>, or any [[Continuous|continuous]] [[Connected_(topology)|connected]] [[Dense_subset|dense]] [[Linear_order|linear order]] without [[endpoint]]s. Generally, when mathematicians say "the continuum", they are referring to one of the first two possibilities (context clarifies which one). The [[Continuum_hypothesis|Continuum Hypothesis]] conjectures that there is no set of cardinality bigger than that of the [[natural number]]s <math>\aleph_0</math>, but smaller than the cardinality of the set of the real numbers <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>.

The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians. Any linear order of the complex numbers needs the [[Axiom of Choice]] to be constructed.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Continuum

2009-02-05T08:07:34Z

AndyJM: Removing incorrect statement. Please see my proof that this is incorrect on the talk page.

Mathematically, '''continuum''' can refer to the [[Real_line|real line]], its [[Cardinality|cardinality]] <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>, or any [[Continuous|continuous]] [[Connected_(topology)|connected]] [[Dense_subset|dense]] [[Linear_order|linear order]]. Generally, when mathematicians say "the continuum", they are referring to one of the first two possibilities (context clarifies which one). The [[Continuum_hypothesis|Continuum Hypothesis]] conjectures that there is no set of cardinality bigger than that of the [[natural number]]s <math>\aleph_0</math>, but smaller than the cardinality of the set of the real numbers <math>\mathfrak{c}</math>.

The continuum is called so because it was the first (and most prominent) [[Continuous|continuous]] set studied by mathematicians.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Counterexample

2009-02-01T11:25:19Z

AndyJM: Correcting inconsistent spelling

A '''counterexample''' is an example that is opposite to a theory or argument.

==In Science and Logic==

For example, the well-proven theory that cigarettes cause [[lung cancer]] has the '''counterexample''' of the (rare) individual who might smoke his entire life and not develop lung cancer. The counterexample does not disprove the theory.

A '''counterexample''' cannot disprove correlation or causation. An example of flawed [[liberal logic]] is the use of a counterexample to argue that a theory is false, as in "I don't go to church and I'm not a bad person, and therefore church is not needed."

A theory of universality, such as the claim that ''all'' species [[theory of evolution|evolved]], can be disproved by just one '''counterexample''', such as a species (like the [[whale]]) that lacks a plausible evolutionary path.
[[category:logic]]

==In Mathematics==

The word counterexample originated in mathematics. It means an example that contradicts a general statement; therefore, the single example proves the statement false. Consider the statement

"Every number ending in the digit 7 is prime." 7, 17, 37, 47, 57, and 67 are all prime, but 27 is not, so 27 is a counterexample.[[Category:Mathematics]]

Axiom of Choice

2009-02-01T11:23:45Z

AndyJM: Undo revision 613164 by Hlibert (Talk) To claim'most' here you need a reference.

The '''Axiom of Choice''' ('''AC''')<ref>There are numerous equivalent [[mathematical formula]]e which capture the idea of the Axiom of Choice. Here are two:
::<math>\forall x\;(\forall y\;y\in x\Rightarrow\exists z\; z\in y)\;\exists S\;(\forall z\;z\in x\Rightarrow\exists w\;w\in z\;\wedge\;w\in S)\;\wedge\;(\forall v\;v\in z\;\wedge\;v\in S\Rightarrow v=w)</math>

and
::<math>\forall x\neq\varnothing\;\exists S\;(\forall z\in x\;\exists_1w\in z\cap S).</math></ref> is a powerful [[axiom]] of [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory that is useful for proving otherwise unprovable problems, but which has also been used to prove statements that appear absurd.<ref>See, e.g., the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] discussed below.</ref> The Axiom of Choice holds that:<ref name="willard">Stephen Willard, "General Topology" 1.17, p. 9 (Dover 2004)</ref>

::given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection.

In layman's terms, the Axiom of Choice is "For every nonempty set there is a choice function." Or, "We can choose one element from every element of a nonempty set of disjoint sets and this process by which we choose these sets will set up a new set." More precisely, the Axiom of Choice states that:

::For every collection of nonempty sets S, there exists a function f such that f(S) is a member of S for every possible S.

Mathworld explains the Axiom of Choice as follows:<ref name="mathworld">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AxiomofChoice.html</ref>

::Given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets.

Yet another helpful explanation of the Axiom of Choice is this:<ref name="kuro5hin">http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/23/134430/275</ref>

::If you have a collection of sets C (which may potentially contain an uncountably large number of sets), then there exists a set H, called the choice set, which contains precisely one element from each (non-empty) set in C. H is called the "choice set" because you are essentially going through each set in C and choosing one element from it. One feature of the Axiom of Choice is that H is simply assumed to exist; there is no algorithm given which might tell you how to construct an example of H.

It has been shown that neither the Axiom of Choice nor its negation will contradict the other axioms of set theory. Thus assuming the Axiom of Choice and assuming its negation will each result in differingly consistent set theories. It is the choice of the mathematician whether to believe the axiom or believe its negation; many people choose to not take a position on this issue at all because the majority of mathematics can be proven without invoking the axiom altogether.

== Instruction ==

In many undergraduate mathematics curricula, the Axiom of Choice is introduced early as a tool for solving problems. It often goes under one of its other guises, such as [[Zorn's Lemma]] or the [[Well-Ordering Theorem]]. Students are taught it as a proof method, but often with little mention of the questionable nature of the axiom. Often, a full discussion of the [[paradox]]es that accompany the axiom is left to a higher (graduate) level special topics course in [[logic]], despite the fact that mathematicians in numerous fields may be tempted to use it and thus should be aware of its controversy. Undergraduate courses also neglect to adequately mention when the axiom is being invoked, giving a false sense that use of the axiom is incidental, rather than documenting its widespread nature in recent mathematical proofs.

== Use of the Axiom of Choice ==

The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the [[Tychonoff theorem]], the Well-Ordering Theorem<ref name="mathworld" />, the existence of [[cardinal number]]s and the existence of a basis for every vector space{{fact}}. In [[algebra]] it is common to use Zorn's Lemma (also equivalent to the Axiom of Choice<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ZornsLemma.html</ref>) to study [[ideal]]s in infinite [[Noetherian ring]]s.

Use of the Axiom of Choice has led to some seemingly absurd results. In the [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]], the Axiom of Choice is used to prove that a solid sphere of infinitely divisible parts may be chopped up and reconstructed as two new spheres of identical size, thereby creating 2 out of only 1. This paradox is proven only through use of the Axiom of Choice, and the authors of this proof did so to criticize this Axiom. One attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction is to show that physical spheres are not [[Lebesgue measurable]].<ref name="kuro5hin" />

The Axiom of Choice can also be used to prove the apparently absurd existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure.<ref>However, it is also possible to construct such a subset without using the Axiom of Choice. See [http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/fm/fm138/fm13812.pdf "The Hahn-Banach theorem implies the existence of a non-Lebesgue measurable set"]</ref>

The highly publicized proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] relies on the Axiom of Choice, which was one of the points of criticism by [[Marilyn vos Savant]] in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref>

Interestingly, it has been proven that any theorem of [[number theory]] which uses the Axiom of Choice may be proven in a different way unaided by the axiom.<ref>http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

== Controversy ==

Despite its usefulness, many mathematicians reject the Axiom of Choice. Stephen Willard, author of the textbook ''General Topology'', wrote the following after describing the Axiom of Choice:

<blockquote>It is left to the reader to decide that these two statements both say the same thing. What they say is: given any collection of sets, however large, we can pick one element from each set in the collection. It bothers some people because it asserts the existence of a set (...) without giving enough information to determine that set uniquely (by applying a finite number of rules), and it is the ''only'' formal set-theoretic axiom which does this. For this reason it is customary to mention the axiom of choice whenever it is used. It need not be used if the number of sets is finite.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=-o8xJQ7Ag2cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1 Page 9 of "General Topology"]</ref></blockquote>

The rejection of the Axiom of Choice reflects a preference for [[constructive proof]]s. AC, by its very nature, is nonconstructive, since it merely asserts that a choice function exists, but does not give an explicit method for its construction. Since the Axiom of Choice is independent of the other axioms, assuming this axiom results in a more constrained system than otherwise. Thus results provable with it might not be provable or might not even be true, without it.

The formulation of a constructive Axiom of Choice is one of three major problems which challenge 21st century logicians.<ref>Edna Ernestine Kramer, "The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics", Princeton University
Press, 1982. p. 595.</ref>

== Sources ==

*http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:Set Theory]]
[[category:Advanced Mathematics]]

Million

2009-01-29T16:27:07Z

AndyJM: Not even close. One million days is 2,740 years.

A '''million''' is a large number represented as 1,000,000 and is equivalent to one [[thousand]] thousands (1000 <big>[[multiplication|<math>\times</math>]]</big> 1000). It is represented in [[scientific notation]] as 106.

As a scale factor in units of measurement, a million is represented by the prefix '''mega'''.

==See also==

[[Powers of ten]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-29T16:20:59Z

AndyJM: Moving text

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-01-29T16:19:50Z

AndyJM: /* Incumbent */ new section

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 
== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==References (please leave at bottom of page)==
{{Reflist}}

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Nikola Tesla

2009-01-29T15:50:16Z

AndyJM: Clean up and wikify

'''Nikola Tesla''' (July 9, 1856-January 7, 1943) was a Croatian-American electrical engineer, inventor and physicist who contributed to many of the developments in the field of [[electricity]].

He pioneered the eventual adaptation of [[alternating current]], which is more efficient than [[direct current]].

The SI unit measuring magnetic flux density or magnetic induction (commonly known as the magnetic field), is named the tesla, in his honor.

He was [[Thomas Edison]]'s main rival at the end of the 19th century, even surpassing him in fame in the 1890s.

Despite the international fame he received as a result of his work involving the alternating current, he died relatively penniless in a [[New York]] hotel room.
[[Category:Inventors|Tesla, Nikola]]

Talk:Continuum

2009-01-29T15:27:20Z

AndyJM: Me fail English. That's unpossible!

Talk:Continuum

2009-01-29T15:24:47Z

AndyJM: /* No additional numbers may be added to the continuum (real line) without losing its dense linear order. */ new section

Talk:Kernel (geometry)

2009-01-28T19:40:03Z

AndyJM: Suggesting rename.

This article should either be renamed or split. It covers the notion of kernel in both algebra and geometry. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 14:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Pseudoscience

2009-01-28T19:38:18Z

AndyJM: Adding naturopathy

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. Theories are typically classed as pseudoscientific if they fail the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically no falsifiable, lack objectivity, and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label of pseudoscience is commonly given to [[charlatans]], who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances reveal that they are really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Chiropractic]] (except for lower back pain)
*[[Dianetics]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Osteopathy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Ufology]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Chiropractic

2009-01-28T19:34:52Z

AndyJM: Fixing grammar.

'''Chiropractic''' is a form of [[alternative healthcare]] based upon the [[theory]] that [[subluxations|subluxations]] of the [[spine]] can cause pain and poor [[nerve]] signal transmission.<ref>http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/Chiropractic.htm</ref> Proponents of Chiropractic have theorized that the [[vertebrae]] in the human spine can become misaligned, applying extra stress on certain muscles and possibly irritating the hub of a nerve pathway.<ref>http://www.chiroforlife.com/ChiroInfo/aboutchiro.htm</ref> However, the claims of Chiropractors have been in contention for many years, and despite its mainstream nature, it has been alleged that many of the claims regarding the benefits of Chiropractic are exaggerated.

Chiropractic was developed by [[DD Palmer]], a [[magnetic healer]], in 1895. The idea behind chiropractic [[medicine]] is the Chiropractic practitioner, or ''Chiropractor'' will use physical or instrument manipulations to realign the spine. Chiropractic adjustments have been stereotyped as ''racking and cracking''. This is not true as there are several techniques, most notably [[Activator Methods Technique]], which involve no physical maneuvers.

==Initial Reaction==
[[Allopathic medicine]] was quick to mobilize against chiropractors, after it was first introduced to the world. It was considered illegal and many of the early chiropractors, including Palmer, were convicted of practicing medicine without a license.

==Licensing laws==
In the 1930s, the first chiropractic licensure laws were passed to protect the public from charlatans masquerading as chiropractors. With the passage of a Chiropractic Licensure Act in [[Louisiana]], chiropractic became legal in all 50 States. As with allopathic medicine, it is unlawful to practice chiropractic without a license.

Prospective chiropractors must graduate from chiropractic school and pass a rigorous examination administered by the National Board of Examiners. Before gaining admission to Chiropractic School, they must have a undergraduate degree and have completed required pre chiropractic coursework. Only then will a State Board of Examiners grant them a license to practice. Education does not end after licensure, as completion of continuing education is a prerequisite for license renewal.
==Scope of Practice==
The scope of practice for chiropractors varies by state. Generally they are primary care providers, though. In Oregon, chiropractors are allowed to practice obstretics, write prescriptions, and perform minor surgeries. California<ref>http://www.chiro.ca.gov</ref>, on the other hand, allows none of these things to be done by chiropractors.

==Wilks v. AMA==
After [[Wilks v. AMA]], the medical community began to cooperate more with chiropractors for the benefit of patients.

== See also ==

*[[Mind/body]]
*[[Naturopathy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Toroid

2009-01-28T19:29:42Z

AndyJM: I agree.

Should this be here? Seems like an odd topic for an entire article... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:54, 28 January 2009 (EST)
: I agree. This could surely be merged with the torus article. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 14:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Catherine McAuley

2009-01-19T17:38:20Z

AndyJM: Adding DEFAULTSORT

Catherine McAuley (b. 1778) was the founder of the [[Sisters of Mercy]] <ref>[http://www.sistersofmercy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=164]</ref>.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.sistersofmercy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=164 Sisters of Mercy of the Americas]

{{DEFAULTSORT:McAuley, Catherine }}

[[Category:Religious People]]

Catherine McAuley

2009-01-19T17:36:46Z

AndyJM: Adding cat

Catherine McAuley

2009-01-19T16:34:46Z

AndyJM: Very basic stub. I hope to add more soon.

Talk:Expectation (math)

2009-01-19T15:16:42Z

AndyJM: Hits on google

== Rename ==

I think that this article should be moved to Expected Value and create a redirect from expectation (math) and expectation value to this page. Does this seem reasonable? In my experience expected value is the far more common term. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 09:59, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Both terms occur frequently in all kinds of literature. "Mathematical Expectation" is perhaps the more official math term, but "Expected Value", "Expectation Value" all occur frequently. Not really sure what the best way to handle this is. Perhaps wiki supports something like aliases? [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 10:02, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: I get around 750,000 google hits on ("expected value" AND probability) with 140,000 google hits on ("expectation value" AND probability). Clearly expectation value is used much more often than I had anticipated but expected value does seem more popular. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:16, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Expectation (math)

2009-01-19T14:59:31Z

AndyJM: Should we rename this article?

Talk:Elementary proof

2009-01-19T12:22:03Z

AndyJM: Reply to Foxtrot

== Who uses this concept? ==
I don't think that it is correct that anyone calls a proof "elementary" just because it does not use the square root of (-1). Nor is it true that an elementary proof is necessarily preferred.

It is not an assumption that (-1) can have a square root. It can be proved. Nor is the square root unique. (-1) has 2 square roots, if it has any.

I suggest killing this article. It just isn't useful. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

If the test were what is "useful", then most math articles should be deleted!

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

:::<big><big><math>\sqrt{-1}</math></big></big>

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: Existence depends on what system you are operating in. Uniqueness is fairly easy if you are operating in a field. Proposition: in any field F, with c and element of F, the equation <math>x^2=c</math> has at most 2 solutions. Proof: Consider <math>x^2=c</math>. this implies that <math>x^2-c=0</math>. We may assume that c has at least one square root (call it <math>c^{1/2}</math>). So we have <math>(x+c^{1/2})(x-c^{1/2})</math>. Now, since fields have no zero divisors (easy excercise), we must have <math>x+c^{1/2}=0</math> or <math>x-c^{1/2}=0</math> which gives us only two choices. Q.E.D. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: I have never heard an "elementary proof" used to refer to a proof that "cannot be broken down into smaller proofs", whatever that is supposed to mean, and moreover, this doesn't clearly have anything to do with the other definition about avoiding complex analysis. Moreover, Selberg's Fields was primarily for his other work on the Riemann zeta function (complex analysis! the horror!) and Selberg formula, which indicated the direction of this proof. The proof itself was not the grounds for the medal, as this article indicates. Some editor here seems to have a bizarre fascination with "elementary proofs", but would surely be hard-pressed to find a serious mathematician who rejected residue calculus on the grounds that it is not an elementary method, as that article claims.

Re: "I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots)", the questioner might try to learn a bit about fields and algebraic extensions thereof. By "sqrt(-1)" we mean some symbol which is "adjoined" to a field and which satisfies x^2+1=0. Such a thing exists in a field extension (and one can prove this quite rigorously), and is obviously unique there. Any basic algebra text (Artin, Dummit/Foote, etc) will cover the requisite material better than I could hope to do here.

- jlezzy
::The "some editor" you refer to is either [[User:Aschlafly |the owner]] or myself and neither of us have a bizarre fascination with this subject. Mockful sarcasm doesn't get you far on this site and neither does a woefully inappropriate choice of username. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:39, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This poster was indeed rude, but can we get citations for any of this? I can't find any evidence that there are mathematicians who reject the method of residues for being non-elementary.

== Definition of Elementary proof ==

I would like to remove the statement about elementary proofs being those that cannot be broken down into smaller proofs. This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What so we mean by a 'smaller' proof? What do we mean by breaking a proof down into other proofs? Typically the proof of a long theorem is broken down by proving many of the steps as a lemma. This is done to make the proof of the main theorem easier to comprehend. This can be done with any theorem whose proof has more than one step. Any non-trivial theorem is bound to have many steps so I don't think that this is what the author intends. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 12:05, 9 January 2009 (EST)
:AndyJM, I really don't understand what your are finding so baffling about the concept of elementary proofs. The line you removed was an important statement, and as you can see, Andy (the owner) reinstated it with some clearer wording. If you do not have experience with elementary proofs, then please do not remove content from the articles -- you've been banned for such actions before. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)
:: Hi Foxtrot. I thought that I had clearly laid out what I find so baffling about one particular statement in this article. Did you read my comment? While I am not delighted with the addition that Schlafly made it is a definite improvement over what had been there. The vast majority (perhaps all) all the proofs that I have published could be classified as elementary according to the first definition, i.e. not using complex analysis. However I have no idea whether or not they would elementary according to the second definition. This suggests to me that the second definition could be a bit suspect or 'loose', so to speak. I am not out to cause trouble here, and despite your beliefs to the contrary I have not made any edits for ideological reasons. In fact to my mind mathematics is refreshingly free of ideology. Dia dhuit (to which the polite response is 'Dia is muire dhuit'). [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Quaternion

2009-01-19T12:09:26Z

AndyJM: Nice work but you missed one!

In [[mathematics]], a '''quaternion''' is a four-dimensional [[object]] important in [[group theory]] and [[geometry]]. As with the complex numbers, the quaternions can be viewed as an extension of the [[real number]] line. Unlike the complex numbers, however, the quaternions are not a [[field]], since multiplication is not commutative. Instead, the quaternions are a '''skew field'''

Quaternions were invented by [[Irish]] [[mathematician]] William Rowan Hamilton in the 1840s. Their unusual appearance prompted him to give them the pseudo-[[Latin]]ate name "quaternion integer". Quaternions have proved useful in describing the mechanics of [[rotation]].

==Operations==
The quaternions obey all the usual arithmetic operations. Quaternions may be [[addition|added]], [[subtraction|subtracted]], and [[multiplication|multiplied]]. Addition is [[associative]] and [[commutative]], while multiplication is only associative. Moreover, addition distributes over multiplication, and so the quarternions are termed a skew field.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Tax cuts

2009-01-19T12:05:55Z

AndyJM: Expanding the point about apparent paradox.

'''Tax cuts''' provide a stimulus to the economy, because they reduce the cost of doing business and allow ordinary citizens to spend or save or invest more of their own money. Often cutting a tax rate will result in a net increase of [[tax revenue]]. This may seem paradoxical but can be easily explained by the fact that lowering taxes can stimulate the economy. The best example is the tax on [[capital gains]]. This phenomenon is described by the [[Laffer curve]], which states there exists a point when increasing taxes actually decreases tax revenue.
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Taxation]]

Tax cuts

2009-01-18T12:29:54Z

AndyJM: There is nothing paradoxical about the fact that cutting tax may increase revenue.

'''Tax cuts''' provide a stimulus to the economy, because they reduce the cost of doing business and allow ordinary citizens to spend or save or invest more of their own money. Often cutting a tax rate will result in a net increase of [[tax revenue]]. The best example is the tax on [[capital gains]]. This phenomenon is described by the [[Laffer curve]], which states there exists a point when increasing taxes actually decreases tax revenue.
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Department of the Treasury]]

User talk:Hlibert

2009-01-18T12:25:42Z

AndyJM: /* Constructive proof */ new section

{{welcome}}
[[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:46, 17 January 2009 (EST)

== Constructive proof ==

Hi Hilbert. Great user name. Hilbert is a great hero of mine.

I noticed that you added a statement about how non-constructive proofs are the only way to prove the insolvability of the quintic. As the proof of the insolvability of the quintic is one of the highlights of Galois theory you should know that this edit may not be looked on favorably by certain sysops here. Galois is quite the hero at Conservapedia as he was home schooled. Non constructive proofs are not in favor here. Drawing attention to the fact that the proof is non-constructive could cause you trouble. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 07:25, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Linguistic Analysis of Candidates

2009-01-16T16:29:12Z

AndyJM: Are there any other people to test this on?

This is an interesting concept. I see a potential difficulty, though. There are certain concepts which I really don't think you can omit entirely when evaluating conservatism (the right to life, for example, and religious freedom.) However, the trick is in determining which key phrases are most likely to be employed, and thus turn up in searches. After all, a mention of "abortion" in a speech isn't a reliable indicator of conservatism--a rabidly pro-abortion candidate might use the word, as well.

How best to evaluate conservative leanings on these very important issues? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't fully follow your criticism. "Pro-life" is part of the test, for example. Perhaps you'd like to look at the first analysis and reconsider or rephrase your criticism. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::Not so much a criticism as musing on the most efficient way to go about it, Andy. I don't think anything you've already included needs to change; I just wonder if other terms are also warranted. Pro-life is there (and I did, indeed, overlook that the first time; thank you for pointing it out!) Pro-life is certainly a good term, and one that's only likely to be used by conservatives, but is it sufficient? Would it be worthwhile to include terms like "right to life" as well? What about terms that accurately describe the abortion industry, but which liberals avoid like the plague: "pro-abortion," for instance, or "abortion on demand?"

::I suppose what I'm trying to figure out here is where the optimal balance falls between being thorough and getting bogged down in too many redundant terms. Rather than add terms wholesale, I thought I'd seek guidance here first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::: If time were unlimited, the list could grow in an unlimited manner. But then priority is lost. Twenty (20) seems to balance breadth with priority, and I'd be reluctant to expand the list. But feel free to make specific suggestions here. So far, I don't see how to improve on the term "pro-life". The terms "pro-abortion" and "abortion on demand" seem redundant at best. Overlap between terms is to be avoided.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::::I do see your point. I guess the only question I still have, then, is about religious freedom and school prayer; I don't see any terms on the list that directly touch on these issues, which I would certainly consider important to most conservatives. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't this be an essay? [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 21:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I think the concept is encyclopedic and susceptible to objective analysis. Encyclopedias include analysis of novels, so why not linguistic analysis of candidates?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)
:: As I understand it, though, such analysis comes from other sources. It's not a huge issue, anyways. [[User:KevinS|KevinS]] 16:45, 13 January 2009 (EST)

To test the effectiveness of this approach we should compare the results for known conservatives such as Palin and McCain with known Liberals such as Obama. If this test is effective it should give very different results. If I have time at the weekend I'll put something together. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:17, 16 January 2009 (EST)

: Please do, but note that no one ever felt McCain was a "known conservative," and Palin, though to the right of McCain, remains largely unknown in her political views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:26, 16 January 2009 (EST)

:: Excellent. Do you have any people I could test this on or should I go ahead with McCain, Palin and Obama? Anyone whose speeches are easily available on the internet would do. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:29, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Linguistic Analysis of Candidates

2009-01-16T16:17:06Z

AndyJM: Could we test his on Obama's speeches?

Irrational number

2009-01-16T16:11:24Z

AndyJM: Every number, both rational and irrational, is the limit of a Cauchy sequence. For example 0 is the limit of infinitely many different Cauchy sequences. One is 1,1/2, 1/4, 1/8,....

An '''irrational number''' is a number that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two [[integers]]. Irrational numbers together with [[rational number]]s make up the set of [[real numbers]].

Irrational numbers often arise as solutions to problems involoving rational numbers. For example, the square root of 2 is irrational. Other irrationals, such as [[pi]], serve as fundamental constants in many mathematical problems.

Irrational numbers can never be expressed exactly using decimal notation with a finite number of digits. Instead it is common to write them using only enough significant digits to solve the problem at hand, followed by an ellipsis (…):

:<math>\pi\ = 3.1415926...</math>

==See also==

[[Transcendental numbers]]

[[Category:mathematics]]

Elementary proof

2009-01-16T16:08:17Z

AndyJM: Removing incorrect statement about elementary proof. See comments on talk page prior to yielding ye olde banhammer.

An '''elementary proof''' or '''elementary technique''' in mathematics is a [[proof]] that uses only [[real numbers]] or [[real analysis]] rather than the use of [[complex analysis]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref>

The [[Prime Number Theorem]] has long been proven using complex analysis ([[Riemann Zeta function]]), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the [[Fields Medal]]. In contrast, [[Andrew Wiles]]' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] did not use elementary techniques.<ref name="Occam">http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref>

===References===

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:American Indian

2009-01-16T15:59:30Z

AndyJM: /* Sources */ new section

Could this article possibly be broken down into more pieces? American Indian in a broad sense refers to all the indigenous peoples of North and South America, which is alot of ground to cover. Can we do an article on just North American Indians, and then maybe one on South Americans?[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 12:46, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

=="Native American" vs. "native American"==
The term "Native American" does not mean the same thing as the phrase "native American". (Sorry I didn't explain this edit in the comment line. I can expand my explanation here if anyone wants to discuss.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the difference? And if you think that there was a punctuation error, why didn't you just correct the punctuation? Please don't just remove the sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry - I did a quick edit when I should have explained and discussed it here first. Let me explain. As you know, "Native American" refers to an American Indian, whereas "native American" refers to someone who was born here. (As opposed to "naturalized American", which refers to someone who was born elsewhere but has become a citizen here - like Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example). I think the context in which "Native American" or "native American" is used is usually enough to differentiate them (especially because almost everyone who is Native American would also be native American). If the context is not clear, one can always use "native-born American" instead of "native American", or "American Indian" instead of "Native American". The original sentence in the article was ''"Furthermore, the term Native American literally means anyone who was born in American as an American, so it can also be used by any American who wants to distinguish himself from an American immigrant."'' This sentence, as written, didn't make any sense to me, because I read it literally - that is, I read it to mean that any native-born American could call themselves a "Native American", with a capital N. Now I see that's perhaps not what was meant by the original sentence. Of course anyone can call themselves anything they want, but since "Native American" (with a cap N) generally isn't used to mean "native-born American", I thought (based on my original reading of it) the sentence didn't really add anything useful to the article and was confusing. That's why I took it out - I didn't think the sentence would make sense if I changed the cap N to a lower case N. However, since you put it back in, I assume you think it's important to the article to explain the two terms, and I can see that makes a certain amount of sense. If we're going to include information about the term "native American", then I think the sentence needs a bit of tweaking. How about ''The term "Native American", with a capital N, should not be confused with the phrase "native American", with a lower-case N. The term "native American" or "native-born American" refers to an American who was born in America, as opposed to a "naturalized American", who was born elsewhere but has become a citizen of America. '' What do you think? I welcome your input - let's work together to make this the best it can be.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:46, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I believe that any native-born American is just as much a Native American as anyone else. I object to any implication that some people are more rightfully called Native Americans, with whatever punctuation, based on how many generations their ancestors lived in America. I don't think any more needs to be added.
::: Someone else tried to edit it to imply that using the term native American to refer to a native-born American went obsolete in the 19th century. However, I do not think that is true. In my experience, many non-Indians readily identify themselves as native Americans, and American Indians are happy to be called Indians. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:16, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]First, let me say I had *no idea* that this was being discussed over at "Native American" when I did the original edit!
::::I see your point that the term "Native American" *could*, in theory, be used to refer to someone who was born in America but is not of indigenous decent. However, my personal impression is that this usage is rare. Do you find that people actually use it this way (with the capital N), or are you just making the argument that it *could* be used this way? I agree with you that the use of "native American" (with a lower-case N) to mean "native-born American", is not obsolete, but we must be careful not to confuse the two. In fact, I think it's important to explain the usage of both. How's this for a compromise - I think it contains what you were saying, plus explains the different usage of the two terms:
::::''The term "Native American" literally means anyone who was born in America, and can be used that way; however the term is usually used to refer to an American Indian. The phrase "native American" (with a lower-case "N") or "native-born American" is usually used to refer to an American who was born in America. In contrast, the term "naturalized American" refers to someone who was born elsewhere but has become a citizen of America. '' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:33, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: You are making some statements about how terms are "usually" used. I doubt that you are correct, and I don't see how the statements are helpful even if they are. So I don't agree with your proposed change. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], you are right - I shouldn't expect you to see my point of view without references. I did some looking - see below.

* native American –noun a person born in the United States. <ref>"native american." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 28 May. 2007. <Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native%20american]></ref>

* Native American –noun Indian <ref>"Native American." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 28 May. 2007. <Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native%20american]></ref>

* Native American n. A member of any of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. The ancestors of the Native Americans are generally considered by scientists to have entered the Americas from Asia by way of the Bering Strait sometime during the late glacial epoch. <ref>"Native American." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 28 May. 2007. <Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native%20american]> This entry includes the following usage note: ''"Many Americans have come to prefer Native American over Indian both as a term of respect and as a corrective to the famous misnomer bestowed on the peoples of the Americas by a geographically befuddled Columbus. There are solid arguments for this preference. Native American eliminates any confusion between indigenous American peoples and the inhabitants of India, making it the clear choice in many official contexts. It is also historically accurate, despite the insistence by some that Indians are no more native to America than anyone else since their ancestors are assumed to have migrated here from Asia. But one sense of native is "being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place," and Native Americans' claim to being the original inhabitants of the Americas is unchallenged. · Accuracy and precision aside, however, the choice between these two terms is often made as a matter of principle. For many, Native American is the only choice for expressing respect toward America's indigenous peoples; Indian is seen as wrong and offensive. For others, the former smacks of bureaucracy and the manipulation of language for political purposes while the latter is the natural English term, its inaptness made irrelevant by long use. Fortunately, this controversy appears to have subsided somewhat in recent years, and it is now common to find the two terms used interchangeably in the same piece of writing. Furthermore, the issue has never been particularly divisive between Indians and non-Indians. While generally welcoming the respectful tone of Native American, most Indian writers have continued to use the older name at least as often as the newer one. · Native American and Indian are not exact equivalents when referring to the aboriginal peoples of Canada and Alaska. Native American, the broader term, is properly used of all such peoples, whereas Indian is customarily used of the northern Athabaskan and Algonquian peoples in contrast to the Eskimos, Inuits, and Aleuts. Alaska Native (or less commonly Native Alaskan) is also properly used of all indigenous peoples residing in Alaska."''</ref>

* Native American noun American Indian <ref>"Native American." Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. K Dictionaries Ltd. 28 May. 2007. <Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native%20american]></ref>

* native american adjective 1. of or pertaining to American Indians or their culture or languages; "Native American religions"; "Indian arrowheads" [syn: Indian] noun 1. any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived [syn: Amerindian] <ref>"native american." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 28 May. 2007. <Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/native%20american]></ref>

Our article currently says ''"Furthermore, the term Native American'' [with a capital N] ''literally means anyone who was born in American as an American, so it can also be used by any American who wants to distinguish himself from an American immigrant."'' While I agree that it ''can'' be used this way, the references above seem to back up my understanding that this is not at all common usage, and I think if we are to be encyclopedic we should make that clear. Of course, there may be contexts or communities where this usage is common, and I have not done extensive research - could you give some examples of where you see "Native American" (with a capital N) used to mean "native-born American"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Your source suggests that "Native American" is a politically motivated propaganda term that is intended to imply that American Indians are the original inhabitants of America. The source is wrong when it says that the implication is "historically accurate". There is substantial evidence that American Indians were ''not'' the original inhabitants.
: I don't know why you are pursuing this, unless you want CP to use terminology that suggests that Indians are more native to America than anyone else. The current text is correct, and avoids the inaccurate implications. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Your source suggests that "Native American" is a politically motivated propaganda term that is intended to imply that American Indians are the original inhabitants of America.'' I agree that "Native American" is a politically motivated term that is intended to imply that American Indians have been here for hundreds, thousands, or maybe even tens of thousands of years longer than European Americans. (I have no idea exactly how long.) I realize that you don't like the use of this term, because you believe that all Americans are equal, regardless of how long their ancestors have lived here. I think you have a legitimate point, and I do not have a problem with this being expressed in the article. But we can't pretend that the term "Native American" (with a capital N) really means "native-born American" if it isn't actually commonly used that way.
::''The source is wrong when it says that the implication is "historically accurate". There is substantial evidence that American Indians were ''not'' the original inhabitants.'' I think the issue is more complex than this, but I'm willing to believe that current day Indians are not direct descendants of the earliest people who lived here, and I hope that CP articles will eventually expand on this point.
::''I don't know why you are pursuing this, unless you want CP to use terminology that suggests that Indians are more native to America than anyone else.'' I am pursuing this because I want CP to have an accurate definition of the current usage of the term "Native American" (and, ideally, "native American" as well). That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. I don't care if you raise the point that Native American literally means anyone born in America (although I'm not sure what you mean by "as an American", since everyone born here is a citizen), or if you add a paragraph discussing why the term is problematic. I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether I think the term is a good one or a bad one. I just don't want anyone to come away from the article thinking that the term "Native American" (with a capital N) is commonly used to mean "native-born American", because at least so far I haven't ever seen it actually used that way. (Though it's possible that it is sometimes used that way, no examples have yet been given.) If we want to, in general, use "American Indian" here at CP instead of "Native American", that's fine with me.
::''The current text is correct, and avoids the inaccurate implications.'' I disagree. I believe the current text implies, incorrectly, that it is common to use the term "Native American" (instead of "native American") to mean "native-born American", and I believe (at least until shown otherwise), that this is not the case. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==References and Notes==
<references/>

== 9300 years old? ==

"However, the oldest American skeleton is the 9300 year old Kennewick Man that is physically dissimilar to modern American Indians"

How does this reconcile with the 6000-year age of the planet? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 15:51, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't. Hard-core Creationism fails.

== Sources ==

Does anyone have a source for the statement "But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd." It is clear that any such confident statement about "facts" should have a source to back it up. Denying this is like denying that <math>i\times i=-1</math>. Or perhaps the author would deny that <math>i\times i=-1</math> just because some liberal says it is not true. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:59, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Square matrix

2009-01-16T15:39:43Z

AndyJM: Adding comment about linear transformation and mathifying some of the equations.

A '''square matrix''' is a [[matrix]] where both dimensions are the same. In other words, an <math>n \times m</math> matrix is square if <math>n = m</math>.

A <math>n \times n</math> square matrix can be viewed as a linear transformation of n-dimensional space. For example a <math>3 \times 3</math> matrix defines a transformation of <math>\mathbb{R}^3</math>.

[[Category:Linear algebra]]

Square matrix

2009-01-16T15:30:36Z

AndyJM: Removing the reference to '2-dimensional matrix'. A matrix has two dimensions, the number of rows and the number of columns. What would 2 dimensional refer to?

A '''square matrix''' is a [[matrix]] where both dimensions are the same. In other words, an ''n x m'' matrix is square if ''n=m''.

[[Category:Linear algebra]]