Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:RJJensen

2009-05-18T03:25:37Z

BHarlan: /* My question was about the news headline */ new section

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]

::::: Happy New Year!

:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==US Civil War==

Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Third Party v Third Party System ==

Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Blago ==

I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).

== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==

Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==

Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Category: Naval Battles ==

I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandalism patrol==

RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

==Criminals and folk heroes==

What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Cartoon ==

That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?

From the copyright office's website:

<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>

I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.

Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==

Presented for your inspection and consideration.....

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Gibbs ==

Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==

[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)

==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==

Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Stimulus bill==

Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== World History Lectures ==

I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks==
I see you've been doing some really good work this past week, and thanks! We need more editing like that. Great job. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::HEY--thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

==Attribution==
Please endeavor to give proper attribution for the articles you are taking from Citizendium. A copy of our license is available on the front page of the site. Thank you. [[User:Citizendium|Citizendium]] 15:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

*'''He does, and was the original author of the items he has placed here.''' I was unaware, "Citizendium", you are a German encyclopedia, being that is where your ISP is located. Another fraud/troll bites the dust. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

==Historian?==

Are you really Richard Jensen? I read your midwest book when I was younger (If indeed you are) [[User:JamesFerguson|JamesFerguson]] 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
::yes. I wrote it when I was 24 years old. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Democrats and casual sex==

Jensen, I noticed that you deleted [[Democrats and casual sex|this article]], citing "inappropriate content". While I certainly find the actions of the Democrats to be inappropriate, I don't find the content of the article to be inappropriate. It was written without going into the lewd details of the online solicitations, but with enough evidence to incriminate the Democrats. Hard data doesn't lie: the Democratic convention had that spike in postings, while the RNC, which happened ''after'' and thus was under more scrutiny, did not have the spike in postings. It's a black and white testament to who actually lives family values, and therefore who has the family values in mind. Democrats may talk all they want about upholding morals, but their actions, ''especially'' those done in secret, tell a completely different story, one replete with [[duplicity]].

Furthermore, I'd argue precedent: this content has been listed in the articles on the [[2008 Democratic National Convention]] for some time. When I created the standalone article, I was pleasantly surprised to find the content had already been dutifully reported on CP. If you would, could you please restore the article? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::tens of thousands of people attend major conventions, so they all generate huge amounts of business. Not encyclopedic. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree with Jensen. Pot/Kettle? Given the sex scandals that have and continue to hit both parties, singling out one of them is not the best road to go down..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:::tk is ok. We have lots of middle school kids and tehy shouldn't be wasting their time on this stuff when they can read about Henry VIII. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Kingdom of the Netherlands ==

Could you move [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] to the [[Netherlands]]? (See [[Talk:The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_is_not_the_Netherlands.21|here]]) Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::ok--good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks again! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Arguing only.... ==

This: [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Nine] is exactly what I was talking about. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pilgrim's Progress ==

Hi - sorry to bother. When you edited [[Pilgrim's Progress]] earlier, did the images load ok? For some reason I am only seeing an empty frame, yet the code looks correct and I am about to pull my hair out figuring out what is wrong! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::the images did not load --probably because they are too big. I can resize them now if you want. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I would really appreciate that! Thank you so much. (I know it is a physical impossibility, but it seems I too have blonde moments *grin*) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:17, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::::yes it works! (I made the map smaller) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thank you again! That is one I owe you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fake Quotes ==
I will no longer use BrainyQuote.com, publishers of fake quotes. Thanks for the correction.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::good idea. it's weird how so many quotes get faked these days. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Internet Vandals ==

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--yes they do get under my skin :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh, BTW:
<blockquote>
Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen more sharply than realized, despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data." [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us]
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the tip. I'll keep updating the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Great effort ==

Great effort cleaning up the vandalism this morning! You might observe that vandalism is almost perfectly correlated with products of the political left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. they are nettlesome gnats. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:54, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state it was historically a derogatory term, but that since the late 1950's it has been co-opted by the targets of the term, and in modern usage it isn't necessarily viewed as a negative? Think Jeff Foxworthy, etc. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::good point! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:18, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Richard! I remember that cartoon, too! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:45, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::::It's one of my favorites. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:51, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Socialism]] ==

RJ, when you get a moment, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Socialism#Grammatical_Edit_and_Rebuttal this?] The editor wants to add what he feels is a needed rebuttal to what he feels is something too pro-socialist...I don't see what he's getting at, but do want to accommodate him if possible. Since most of the work there is now yours, I am deferring to your judgment. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
::OK I worked on it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:09, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lenin ==

Hey RJJensen, so, you're ''much'' better at history than I am, but I do feel compelled to ask about your moving of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Lenin (I put the full reasons on the talk page) - simply because I feel precedent would have us use his full name, but the reason I'm posting here is just to clarify that I in no way mean to question you and the request is in no way meant as an insult - I have a lot of respect for you and I just want to make sure there won't be a misunderstanding. Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:20, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the note--no offense taken and i'm glad you asked disguise his identity and so it should not be treated like ordinary names. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Understood - thanks very much! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:47, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Lol, sorry about the misspelled name! I can't believe I did that ... in all seriousness though it really is awesome to work with you - so if you ever need a template or anything done, lemme know.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks--I'm a klutz at progamming and appreciate the help. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Trying to determine if a quote is a fake. I tried Google, it comes up everywhere with blogs only. I tried Google books, about 5 come up. I would think credible historical sites would list if true. Can you confirm Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::I searched around and it appears to be a fake. All genuine Jefferson quotes are well represented in books.google.com [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== "the best"? ==

What constitutes the best prose writer? I would imagine that it is impossible to say in a way that does not involve a whole lot of personal opinion, which as you know is not the kind of objective fact you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. From what I gather you yourself are not an Italian literature scholar, and even if you can read Italian extremely well and have read a good deal of Italian prose I really don't think you can say "he is the best", simply because, as I just said, its subjective. thanks --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 20:48, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::objective fact---hmmm. what sort of facts are those? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I suspect liberal "facts", RJ. What is indisputeable is he wasn't a very good sockmaster! Brendanw, EmersonW, MrEmerson and several accounts that look like IP's were all his. Sorry to ruin your fun with this guy...I didn't see you had engaged him until after I had begun shutting him down. Next time I will let you have fun with them! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::::yeah--my goal is to drive them away redfaced and yours is to catch them red-handed (red moused?) :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

ROFL! Whatever happened to the apparently archaic practice of playing outside? Worries me these little kids no longer play outside.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::on Wikipedia I once was so annoyed by vandals that I complained to the school's principal in New Jersey. since they weren't harrassing HIM, he ignored my complaint. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:46, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sherry Lansing, once in the motion picture business, has lived her business life by one rule: she never leaves the office without returning, or attempting to return ALL calls. No matter that she doesn't know the person, or they end up being someone complaining about a movie they saw. Once, at a charity deal, I asked her why. She winked and said several of those calls had made her millions in good ideas or a writer looking for someone to buy their script. She just hated the thought of being rude and not responding, saying her mother raised her better than that. Sounds like that principal is reaping what he sows. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

==Revert==
Please revert User:ForTheWin's edits (I would myself, but I can't revert past one edit :(

==Thanks==
Thanks for the nice comments on my page! I am very excited for Princeton in the fall. I'll also definitely look up Liz Jensen - aerospace engineering, wow, that's great! I am considering engineering also, with mechanical/aerospace engineering near the top of my list. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:56, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::you might have Liz as your TA -- she loves to teach. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

== Upload ==

Can you give me upload picture rights?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  00:42, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
::I don't have the power; ask [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]].--[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:47, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Just out of curiosity, would you give it to me if you could?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  01:01, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== My question was about the news headline ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=664203&oldid=664167]

"Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, often liquor-induced"

[[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:25, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-22T05:10:02Z

BHarlan: /* Reversion of User:Clintville */ new section

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== 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)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 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)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 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)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== 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

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

==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.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== 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)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== 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)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 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)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 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]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 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)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 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)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 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)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==

The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu. And not to mention he's released his birth certificate. I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here. I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back. It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources. Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations. I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==

Can we have an honest discussion about this section. There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.

The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

* Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."[16]

I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]

This is misleading to say the least. Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia. Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[21]

If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said "John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith". Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim. If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.

* He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."[22]

Ok, it probably is "compatible with the modern world". Why is this evidence he is Muslim.

I could go on but I am getting tired of this. I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article? Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first. Early life and legal career and that stuff. And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody. I welcome any comments. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too. I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you. [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian. It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]]. Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement. Biographical information first and then other issues. By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.

: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence. Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's. Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist. Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise? A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian. Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::And your claim that "Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent" is another sweeping generalization. Please tell me how that proves that he is a Muslim (or not an Atheist), because it's completely absurd

: By the way, Obama's father was an Atheist. I suspect that most people retain the religion (or lack thereof) of their parents. But either way, I'm not trying to make the case that he's an Atheist (or that he's not a Muslim). My point is that he says he's a Christian so anything else is just a theory which has no place in an encyclopedia article (unless this is not really an encyclopedia, but just a forum for pushing your conservative ideology). --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:40, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dog ==

Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==

I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-22T05:05:09Z

BHarlan: I believe these items have been covered on the talk page before. I will explain there.

{{President
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|seq=44
|term_start=January 20, 2009
|term_end=January 20, 2013
|party=Democrat
|vp=Joe Biden
|previous=George W. Bush
|next=
|birth_date=August 4, 1961
|age={{age|1961|8|4}}
|birth_place=
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
|spouse2=
|religion=Described in this entry
}}
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (allegedly<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82033]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref><ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/farber/Obama_birth_certificate/2009/04/06/200320.html]</ref> born in [[Honolulu]] Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th president of the [[United States]],
and previously served as a first-term [[Democratic party|Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004-2008). Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidential election<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]</ref> after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million,<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638</ref> most of it raised from anonymous donors.

As President, Obama has pushed for establishing a Palestinian state over the objection of [[Israel]]'s Prime Minister,<ref>http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-is-not-and-will-never-be-at-war-with-islam....-many-americans-have.../444572/</ref> and for inclusion of [[Turkey]] in the [[European Union]].<ref>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html</ref>

Obama's budget and stimulus bill advanced his [[Socialism|socialist]] idea of "spreading the wealth."<ref>"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT], N.Y. Post </ref><ref>John McCain quipped during the campaign, "He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief."[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008. The slogan "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and could be the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama plans to introduce to the US when he is installed into office.</ref> His health care plan would force employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system.<ref>The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to or can not afford to purchase it themselves.</ref> To announce his trip to [[Berlin]] in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of [[Lenin]] and [[Che Guevara]].<ref>[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]</ref><ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/31/the-la-times-looks-into-the-obama-che-iconcography-connection/ The LA Times looks into the Obama-Che iconcography connection] by Michelle Malkin </ref> During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist<ref>http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/ "Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?", Accuracy in Media.</ref> while Obama has stated that his favorite professors in school were themselves Marxists.

Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama was nominated for president, criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973."<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> It "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make [[partial-birth abortion]] legal again."<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008. Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it.</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] observed that Obama uses techniques of [[mind control]] in his speeches and campaign symbols. One Obama speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 . The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."</ref>

==Obama is likely the first Muslim President==
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|left|thumb|President-Elect Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya<ref>[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]</ref>]]
The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

*Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because '''I am one of them'''."<ref>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090406/D97D32C00.html</ref>
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref>
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]],<ref> Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali].</ref> which most Christians would not retain.<ref>Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: "Cristiano".[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814] When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref>
*Obama recently mentioned his religion as "[[my Muslim faith]]."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref>
*He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."<ref> [http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]</ref>
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309</ref>
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref>
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref>
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>
*On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by [[Fareed Zakaria]],<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref>
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref>
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in Chicago prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]]. <ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com</ref>
*Obama has chosen the [[Secret Service]] code name "Renegade". "Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the [[Spanish]] ''renegado'', meaning "Christian turned Muslim."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html</ref>
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;<ref>http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/</ref> "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html</ref>
*"President-elect [[Barack Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story</ref>
*Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President.<ref>http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ET_Cetera/Obama_to_take_oath_using_middle_name_/articleshow/3813120.cms</ref><ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/10/politics/main4660590.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4660590</ref>
*Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath.
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia - April 2009]]
*'''At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.'''<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]</ref> Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/</ref> Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=483326</ref> However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY</ref> Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU</ref> (Many liberals and even a handful of conservatives have proposed that President Bush also bowed before King Abdullah.<ref>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too</ref> However, there is a vast, inexorable difference between bending down to receive a medal as Bush did and bowing in deference to a foreign leader as Obama did.)
*Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram "IHS", which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/16/georgetown-university-hid-religious-symbols-white-house-request/ Georgetown hides Jesus' name at request of Obama's White House]</ref>

Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991, nor of Barack Obama's joining of a Mosque (The Islamic house of worship) at any time in his life. Finally, Obama abruptly left his radical Christian church in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. On April 7, 2009, Obama visited a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.c2e3700ab4e271bc32827b0fccfe560b.421&show_article=1</ref>
__TOC__ 

==Obama and Elitism and Ayers==

Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on "ordinary" Americans. Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.<ref>[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=1]</ref>

In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.

Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would. In his first television interview after becoming president, Obama declared that "all too often the United States starts by dictating." Earlier, when Obama gave his acceptance speech, he said "We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl135]</ref>

President Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Author and blogger Jack Cashill requisitioned a comparison of the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres may have ghostwritten Dreams.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book; also he wrote "None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams". "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed. He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book. A philosophy professor from England disagreed.[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref> Ayers admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he "should have done more."<ref>[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]</ref>

==Insights==

Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> <ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

==Charitable Giving==

In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref> Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother. According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007</ref>.

==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down. She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]</ref> The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United States it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the United States. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html</ref>

==Statements==
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama II claims to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.

October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlighted Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]</ref><ref>The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]</ref> "'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer,'" in Obama's hometown of Chicago.<ref>"More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides." [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]</ref>

Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for President"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy "...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.

At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies,
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref>

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref>

Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref>

During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”.

===Campaign financing===
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].

===Secrecy===

The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref>

# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)
# Columbia College records
# Columbia Thesis paper
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
# [[Harvard]] College records
# Illinois State Senate records
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
# Occidental College records
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate
# Record of baptism
# Selective Service Registration
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
# Scholarly articles
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref>

===Tone===

Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref>

As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign (Ethan Winner has made a claim that he alone produced the video) <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194180.php</ref>One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.

Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher.

==Election==

Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote. He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 127 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 8 million total votes.<ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/</ref> [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] <ref>[www.cnn.com/election]</ref>

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref>. The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]

Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> Which matches the fact that during his campaign, his staff were discovered on numerous occasions to have Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist guerrilla/murderer [[Che Guevara]].<ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/obama_workers_c.html Obama Workers' Che Guevara Poster Was No Fluke] from Moonbattery</ref> Former presidential candidate [[Alan Keyes]] calls Obama a "radical communist." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/keyes_obama_destroy_US/2009/02/23/184503.html Alan Keyes: Obama Will Destroy U.S.] NewsMax, February 23, 2009</ref>

In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] are focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President:
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mcca)n/]`Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's President, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

Obama is for a one-world government unaccountable to the American people, a threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence. He said "for all nations in the world to come together to build a stronger, global regime"<ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94380]</ref>

== Foreign policy experience ==
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.

While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blamed the media <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>, stating “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and called Wright's rhetoric ""a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref> Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
During the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barack Obama's Hawaii Birth certificate, claiming that it is false and that he is ineligible for Presidency. <ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The "dual loyalties" which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.

Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. <ref>http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605</ref> The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.

The state of Hawaii announced that the "Certification of Live Birth" document is legitimate and official. Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body, they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.<ref>http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04</ref> Critics rightfully point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii. <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92810 Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge] WND, March 24, 2009</ref>

[[Bob Schultz]] with the [[We The People Foundation]] said:

"In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He... has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution."

[[Nancy Salvato]] with [[BasicsProject|BasicsProject.org]] perhaps put it best:

"What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth... not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship."

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]
*[[Birthplace of Barack Obama]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[Obama Administration‎]]
*[[Obama birth certificate lawsuits]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Dont Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack Hussein}}
{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Illinois]]

Talk:Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2009-04-22T03:52:06Z

BHarlan: looked like a joke.

I've set this page up for the CP community's use, but plan on refraining from adding my own comments for the time being. Please feel free to start adding to this debate without waiting on me. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:01, 21 February 2009 (EST)

In an effort to make sure my edits are not misconstrued I am commenting her on my recent edit to this page: I took the recent comments to be some sort of joke, since they included the phrase “Magic Vagina Hypothesis”. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2009-04-22T03:50:14Z

BHarlan: revert nonsense about “Magic Vagina Hypothesis”

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with a fertilized egg==

==Human Life begins with childbirth==

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-21T22:26:09Z

BHarlan: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ scoping

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:He made the site...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.''

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

: Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!{{unsigned|JBryant}}

::Well????

::: Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????
listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? [[User:JBryant|JBryant]] 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

: No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on [[gossip]] about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity ==

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

: The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

I clarified one postulate, i.e., ''The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.'' That seems to be an improvement over ''the speed of light never changes''...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the ''German Physics''.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:It is '''inappropriate''' to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.
:If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?
:I do not think it is a coincidence. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My ''specific factual improvement'' of the article is a change of your wording (''the speed of light never changes'') of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity.
Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:
*'''Wolfgang Pauli''' ''Theory of Relativity'', 1958, p. 5: ''The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source''

*'''Robert Resnick''', '''David Halliday''' ''Fundamentals of Physics'', 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: ''The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light''

and from a source you seem to trust:

*'''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Merriam-Webster]''' ''the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer''
None of these - and many others - implies that the ''speed of light never changes''. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that ''the speed of light never changes'', but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is ''independent of the motion of the light source''.

The phrase ''the speed of light never changes'' is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: ''If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant.'' I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::I stated above that I won't touch the ''historical'' aspects of the lecture, but only the ''scientific'' ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain ''Weltanschauung'', that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.
::I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the [[Theory of Relativity]].
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::''addendum'' It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture '''again''', and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (''the speed of light can never be increased''). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of ''Newton's axioms'', and one shouldn't with ''Einstein's postulates'', neither.
But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:
::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
::::# the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
::::# the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
::::# the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

::::Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?
::::In his article ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper'' - ''About the electrodynamics of moving bodies'' (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote
:::::'' 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.''

:::::''2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. ''

::::This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

:::::''1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described''

:::::''2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body''

::::So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : '''the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source'''

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Einstein speaks of a ''certain velocity V'' - ''eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V''. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (''V'') - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.
:::::: The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the ''Gedankenexperimente'' ...
:::::: To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem?
For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Moses

2009-04-21T04:45:13Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 654956 by J3susfr3ak316 (Talk)

'''Moses''' ([[Hebrew]]: '''מֹשֶׁה''', ''Mōšeh''; [[Arab|Arabic]]: '''موسىٰ''', ''Mūsā''; Ge'ez: '''ሙሴ''', ''Musse'', drawn out) (7 Adar 2433 AM–m. 2473 AM–7 Adar 2553 AM) (18 February 1571–m. 1532–13 March 1451 BC)<ref name=Jones>Jones, Floyd N. ''The Chronology of the Old Testament'', Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004, Chart 4</ref> was the [[prophet]], legislator, [[Judge (biblical)|judge]], and leader of the [[Israel]]ites from the [[Exodus of Israel]] from slavery in [[Egypt]] to the doorstep of [[Canaan (land)|Canaan]]. He is best known for leading the Israelites out of Egypt, and for bringing the [[Ten Commandments]] down from [[Mount Sinai]]. He is also credited with writing most of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the modern [[Bible]]) ca. 1491-1451 BC.

== Life and family ==
Moses is highly esteemed as a prophet by the [[Jew]]s, [[Christian]]s, [[Muslim]]s, [[Mormon]]s, and [[Baha'i]]. Moses's call as a prophet is recorded in {{bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=3}}.

=== Genealogy ===
Moses was the younger son of [[Amram]] and [[Jochebed]]. He had a brother, [[Aaron]], and a sister, [[Miriam]], both older than he. In the fortieth year of his life he married [[Zipporah]], daughter of [[Jethro]] the [[Midian]]ite, and had two sons, named [[Gershom]] and [[Eliezer (son of Moses)|Eliezer]].

=== Prince ===
In 2433 AM (1572/1 BC), the [[Pharaoh]] of [[Egypt]] had ordered that every male newborn Hebrew be thrown into the Nile. When Moses was born, his parents hid him for three months. But they knew that they could not hide him forever. So Jochebed, Moses' mother, took a wicker basket, coated it with tar and pitch, placed Moses into it, and set the basket adrift in the Nile. Miriam followed the basket to see where the river current might take it.

The basket drifted into the private bathing beach of the Pharaoh's daughter. She took the basket out of the river, found a baby boy inside, and decided to raise him as her own son. Then Miriam stepped forward and offered to find a nurse for the boy. The princess agreed, and Miriam then arranged for Jochebed to nurse her own son. The Pharaoh's daughter gave the boy the name of Moses, which means "drawn out," because she had drawn him out of the water.

Thus Moses grew up as a prince of Egypt. In fact, [[Flavius Josephus]] suggests that Moses commanded Egyptian troops and led them to victory against the forces of neighboring [[Ethiopia]].<ref name=Josephus2>Josephus, ''Antiquities'' 2.10</ref> According to that account, the Ethiopians were raiding the Egyptians, and the Pharaoh ordered Moses to lead an army to stop the raiders once and for all. Moses then used a remarkable tactic to take the Ethiopians by surprise. The Ethiopians were expecting Moses to attack by marching along the river, rather than by land, because the land between the two armies was so thick with snakes that it was impassable. For that very reason, Moses was determined to march over land. He ordered his artificers to construct cages and to carry [[ibis]] birds (a sacred bird in Egypt) with them. The ibis is a natural enemy of snakes, and so they scattered the snakes, and the army was safe. Thus the army crossed the land, surprised the enemy, and defeated them.

But Josephus goes on to suggest that Moses had to flee Egypt because a rival prince had hatched a plot to kill him in order to remove him as a rival for the throne. This contradicts the [[Bible]], which says that Moses had to flee because he killed an Egyptian, and Pharaoh found out about it.

The Biblical account of the murder of the Egyptian is as follows: When Moses was forty years old, he realized that he was not Egyptian at all, but Hebrew. When he saw the Hebrew slaves at work, he sympathized with them, not with the Egyptians. Then one day he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew; the Bible does not tell the reason. Moses looked around for any witnesses, saw none, and killed the Egyptian and buried him on the spot. But later Moses tried to intervene in a physical altercation between two Hebrews. The man in the wrong challenged Moses to kill him, too, as he had the Egyptian. Moses then realized that his deed was known.

The Pharaoh heard of the murder and tried to have Moses killed. But Moses fled from Egypt and crossed the Sinai desert into [[Midian]]ite country. ({{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=2|verses=1-15}}, {{Bible ref|book=Acts|chap=7|verses=23-20}})

=== Shepherd ===
Moses came to a well and sat there, probably to recover his strength. Then seven young women came to the well with a flock of sheep. The women drew water from the well and filled the watering troughs, and then a group of shepherds, of unknown nationality, tried to drive them away from the well. Moses fought with the shepherds and forced them to desist. He then helped the women to water their flock.

The seven women were the daughters of [[Jethro]], the priest of Midian. When they returned to him, he asked them how they had been able to complete their chore so quickly. They told their father that "an Egyptian" had protected them from rival shepherds and helped them water the flock. Jethro told them to invite Moses to come and dine with them.

Moses stayed in Jethro's camp and learned how to be a shepherd. He lived with Jethro for forty years. He seems to have married Zipporah soon after he joined Jethro's camp. He had one son during his forty-year sojourn, and another son shortly before the Exodus.

=== Judge ===
: ''Main Articles: [[Egyptian plagues]], [[Exodus of Israel]]''

==== Call of God ====
Moses' career as the first [[Judge]] of [[Israel]] began with the Exodus. [[God]] called to Moses out of a bush that was in flame but did not burn. God said to Moses that He had heard the cry of His people, and would send Moses to deliver them. Moses at first asked God His Name, and God said,{{Bible quote|I AM THAT I AM|book=Exodus|chap=3|verses=14|version=KJV}}

The [[Hebrew]] text perhaps would translate better as, "I am; that's Who I am." In other words, God gave His Name literally as "I am." In every other part of the [[Bible]], the Name of God is given as YHVH or [[YHWH]]. This ''tetragrammaton'', pronounced "Yah-weh", translates as "He is." Thus God revealed His essential character: He simply is, was, always has been, and always will be.

Moses continued to protest that he was not a good speaker, but God continued to persuade Moses and used a large number of miraculous signs. He also said that Moses' brother [[Aaron]] would assist Moses in pleading before Pharaoh and in leading the people afterward.

While Moses was on his way to Egypt, God was about to kill him. Then [[Zipporah]], his wife, performed a circumcision on his son [[Gershom]] and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet, saying that Moses had become a "bridegroom of blood" to her. ({{Bible ref|book=Exodus|chap=4|verses=24-26}}) That this did not happen to [[Eliezer (son of Moses)|Eliezer]], his other son, indicates that this son was not yet eight days old, the age at which circumcision was required according to the [[Abraham]]ic covenant.

==== Exodus ====
Moses and Aaron initially came in peace to Pharaoh, and asked his leave to lead the Israelites into the desert for a three-day period. Pharaoh indignantly refused, and then issued an order that the Israelites would have to gather their own straw to make bricks, and still make the same quota of bricks. This caused the Israelites to look on Moses with extreme disfavor. This was probably the lowest point ever in Moses' life.

But it also took place exactly forty days before the eventual Exodus. In those forty days, God sent ten [[Egyptian plagues|plagues]] upon Egypt, each striking at the heart of Egyptian culture, religion, or both. The last and most severe plague was the plague upon the firstborn, and was also the occasion for the institution of [[Passover]].

On the day after this plague, the Egyptians nearly drove the Israelites out of their country, but not before the Israelites acquired a great store of precious metal, gemstones, linens, and other stuffs of luxury. Sadly, some of these would furnish the material for the [[Golden Calf]]. Happily, much more would furnish the material for the [[Tabernacle]].

==== The Red Sea ====
Six days after the Exodus began, the Israelites were camped next to the Red Sea, and they realized that the Egyptians were now pursuing them. Moses raised his staff, and the waters of the Red Sea parted and left a dry seabed for the Israelites to walk on. After the Israelites had walked across, the Egyptians also entered the seabed to continue their pursuit. Moses raised his staff again, and the waters closed over the army and drowned every last man.

==== The wilderness journey ====
: ''Main Articles: [[Ten Commandments]], [[Golden Calf]], [[Tabernacle]]''

Moses continued to lead the people of Israel for forty years. In that time he equipped and trained an army, handed down judgments, and repeatedly judged the people of Israel for their [[sin]].

The most significant events during those forty years included:

# Repeated "murmurings" of hardship, and the miraculous provision of [[manna]] and [[quail]].
# A battle with [[Amalek]]ites, in which [[Aaron]] and [[Hur]] held up Moses' arms so that he could continue to call God's blessing on the nascent Israelite army, under the command of [[Joshua (Biblical leader)|Joshua]].
# The reception of the [[Ten Commandments]] on stone tablets inscribed by God Himself.
# The disgraceful incident of the [[Golden Calf]].
# The construction of the [[Tabernacle]] and its furnishings, including the [[Ark of the Covenant]].
# The "strange fire" incident in which [[Nadab (son of Aaron|Nadab]] and [[Abihu]] died.
# The first census.
# The spy expedition, the bad report, and God's edict that no adult of that generation would survive to enter the Promised Land except [[Caleb]] and [[Joshua]], the only two spies to keep the faith.
# Two incidents in which Moses drew water from rocks.
# The mutiny of [[Korah]], [[Dathan]], and [[Abiram]].
# The deaths of [[Miriam]] and [[Aaron]].
# The initial conquests, including that of [[Heshbon]], and the incident involving [[Balaam]] and King [[Balak]].
# The disgrace of Israel with the women of [[Moab]], and how [[Phinehas]] distinguished himself in his zeal by summarily executing an Israelite and his [[Midian]]ite concubine, and then leading 12,000 Israelites to victory in the Battle of Midian later that year.
# The second census.

The Amalekite battle was the first battle of the army of Israel, which of course was untested and consisted of soldiers who, a short while before, had been slaves. Moses sent these untested recruits, under the command of [[Joshua (Biblical leader)|Joshua]], against [[Amalek]]ite raiders who had been attacking the stragglers among the Israelites. To ensure victory, Moses stood on a high hill and held up his rod. When he could not hold up his rod indefinitely, Aaron and Hur stood to either side of him, and each man held up one of Moses' arms. Thus Moses kept his rod held high, and the Israelites won.

The [[Golden Calf]] incident was the low point of the wilderness journey, lower even than the [[Korah]] Mutiny or the bad report of the spies. When [[God]] had finished dictating to Moses the Ten Commandments and the instructions for the [[Tabernacle]], He then told Moses to descend immediately, because the people had "corrupted themselves." God then said that he would make a new nation based on Moses. Moses begged God not to do this, and even said that God should kill him, too, if He were so determined. Nevertheless, Moses was furious with the people and would ultimately execute three thousand of them in that episode. Because only the [[Levi (tribe)|Levites]] came to his aid when he called for it, the Levites, from that day to this, took exclusive possession of all sacerdotal duty and responsibility in [[Jew]]ish life.

Moses would endure mutiny (as mentioned above) and questioning of his authority, even by his own brother and sister. Remarkably, he would still bring the Israelites to the border of the Promised Land with their faith nearly intact.

=== Death ===
On 1 Shevat 2553 AM (6 February 1451 BC), Moses gave his last address to the people of Israel. Most of the book of [[Deuteronomy]] consists of the text of that address.

Moses died on [[Mount Nebo]], on the eastern side of the Jordan River. No one knows even today where he is buried.

== Moses as prophet ==
Moses was unique among the prophets of Israel. God spoke face-to-face with Moses. Yet Moses always conducted himself with the utmost humility.

Perhaps his greatest project, other than leading the people of Israel across the Sinai desert, was the building of the [[Tabernacle]]. Every part of its furnishings and coverings is a symbol of [[Jesus Christ]] or His mission to [[earth]].

Sadly, Moses sometimes allowed the murmuring people to provoke him to anger. One one occasion this anger led him to disobey God. God had told Moses merely to speak to a rock and bring forth water. Moses had already struck a rock on an earlier occasion, a symbol of the punishment that [[Jesus Christ]] would undergo. Therefore Moses did not need to strike another rock. But he did strike the second rock. Thus he failed to honor God, and also spoiled the symbolism of the event. For that, God did not allow Moses to enter [[Canaan (land)|Canaan]] before he died.

== Moses as author ==
Moses is traditionally credited with being the author of the [[Pentateuch]], the first five books of the [[Old Testament]]. Jesus confirms this when he refers to Moses writing about him ({{bible ref|book=John|chap=5|verses=46}}), and although he is not specific about exactly what Moses wrote, he would have been referring to the books generally understood as being written by Moses. This body of work includes a history of the world from Creation to the moment of the death of Moses, a complete body of sacerdotal and civil law, and, most importantly, a detailed testimony of the Messiah to come, in the form of the Tabernacle.

Concerning the manner of the composition of the Pentateuch, one striking point stands out: it ends with the death of Moses, though Moses is supposed to be its author. Scholars have advanced three theories to explain this:

# Moses wrote the [[Pentateuch]] in their present form, and scribes added a few passages (such as reference to the death of Moses) after he died.
# Moses wrote a number of different books over the course of his life which were later compiled by scribes into the Pentateuch.
# [[Flavius Josephus]] suggests this theory: that Moses wrote about his own death before he died, for fear that the people might believe he escaped death because of his extraordinary virtue.<ref name=Josephus>Josephus, ''Antiquities'', 4.1.49</ref>

Some sceptics argue that Moses could not have written Deuteronomy, as the book records Moses' death. But that death is recorded in the very last chapter, and there is no reason not to think that a later author didn't append the final chapter. Such an occurrence does not undermine the claim of Moses' authorship of the principal work.

The source of the material is another open question, because obviously Moses was not alive during the events of Genesis or the first chapter of Exodus, and the second chapter begins with his birth. Two theories currently attempt to explain this:

# Moses did not write Genesis, but compiled it from pre-existing written documents handed down through the ancestors of the Israelites all the way back to Adam. Moses could have edited the text to update some information, but whilst Moses would not be the actual author of the book in this case, he would still be responsible for it in its final form, and it would therefore still be one of the "books of Moses".
# Moses received the basis of the [[Pentateuch]] directly from God, as is recorded in the [[Book of Jubilees]], and it was later compiled into historical form by scribes.

== Moses as military leader ==
Moses' reputation as a military leader allegedly begins even before the Exodus. Josephus alleges that Moses commanded [[Egyptian]] troops before his initial exile; this might or might not be true.

Moses did begin the first military training of the nation of Israel, and would send the Israelite army, under the command of [[Joshua (Biblical leader)|Joshua]], against other enemies even before he died. Joshua, of course, succeeded Moses as commander-in-chief, [[Judge (biblical)|judge]], and civil administrator.

== Moses in fiction ==
''Main Article: [[Moses in film]]''

Moses has appeared as the lead character in at least three dramatic projects, two in [[motion picture]]s and one on [[television]]. The record for a faithful depiction of his life is decidedly mixed.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== See Also ==
* [[Ten Commandments]]

{{nb Levi}}
{{nb Judges}}
[[Category:Biblical Persons]]
[[Category:Biblical Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Egyptians]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:Old Testament]]

Apple Inc.

2009-04-20T19:26:21Z

BHarlan: /* The Macintosh */ remove uncited flattery, some of which was false (see xerox parc)

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching." <ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]]. The Macintosh was famous for it's "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh had three major flaws. First, it only had six applications. Secondly the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics." Lastly, the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:information technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Apple Inc.

2009-04-20T19:24:41Z

BHarlan: /* The Apple IIgs */ stolen from xerox parc

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching." <ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next huge Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]], the first [[desktop publishing|Desktop Publisher]] ever created. Using it, small companies could make official-looking documents, a milestone in technology history. The application ran exclusively on the Macintosh. The Macintosh was famous for it's "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The Macintosh was the first device to have a Graphic User Interface (GUI). The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh was a great computer but there were three major flaws. First, it only had six applications. Secondly the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics." Lastly, the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:information technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Apple Inc.

2009-04-20T19:23:18Z

BHarlan: it wasn't "accused", it DID, and Darwin is relevant. I'll fix the spelling and gossip

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching." <ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next huge Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]], the first [[desktop publishing|Desktop Publisher]] ever created. Using it, small companies could make official-looking documents, a milestone in technology history. The application ran exclusively on the Macintosh. The Macintosh was famous for it's "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The Macintosh was the first device to have a Graphic User Interface (GUI). The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh was a great computer but there were three major flaws. First, it only had six applications. Secondly the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics." Lastly, the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven. This was an amazing and unheard of innovation.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:information technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]

World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-20T19:23:07Z

BHarlan: This is not your lecture. Please wait until the author has a chance to consider your new complaints: Undo revision 654802 by ClementB (Talk)

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

The Modern era is from 1900 to today. We learn it beginning with this lecture.

The relationship among European nations was strained and tense around 1900, also known as the turn of the (20th) century. The nations had much to disagree about. Imperialism caused conflicts to arise. Economic competition intensified, and the quest for raw materials like gold, oil and agriculture heightened the tension.

Nationalism was increasing at this time, whereby the countries of Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russian, France and Italy began to feel pride in themselves and dislike for each other. The balance of power that was set up after Napoleon was no longer effective. It seemed inevitable that a future Napoleon-like dictator would try to rule the world again.

Nations built up massive military might, and bragged about them. Germany sought to have the largest navy to compete with Britain’s claim that it had the best navy. Rulers found it popular to have a huge "standing army" (army in peacetime) that could be mobilized at any time.

In sum, at the turn of the century there were increased rivalries among European nations for three reasons: nationalism, militarism and imperialism. Keep those three issues in mind throughout this lecture.

== Alliances ==

You may recall that European nations entered into many alliances beginning as early as the fall of Napoleon (such as the “Concert of Europe,” which was established at the Congress of Vienna).

New alliances were formed in the late 1800s, some of them kept secret at the time. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck entered into the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879 as a way of protecting those countries against possible aggression by France. Italy joined this alliance against France in 1882, making it the '''Triple Alliance'''.

Bismarck was a very skilled statesman and diplomat, and was one of the most influential in European history. He is credited with unifying Germany as a nation in the 1860s (ironically, while the United States was torn by the Civil War). Bismarck even arranged for wars against other nations (first against Denmark, then against Austria and finally against France) in order to help unify the German people against outside enemies. Ultimately unified as a nation in 1871, Germany made Bismarck its first Chancellor, whereupon he consolidated Germany’s power in Europe by entering into the above alliances with other countries. After nearly two decades of rule, Bismarck was eventually forced to resign in 1890 because of a policy dispute with Wilhelm II, who as the “Kaiser” or Caesar of Germany wanted more power for himself.

Kaiser Wilhelm II immediately ended Germany’s alliance with Russia, which caused Russia to form an alliance with France in 1891. In 1907 Great Britain, feeling threatened by Germany’s growing navy, joined France and Russia in their alliance, or entente, and this became the '''Triple Entente'''. Under the terms of this alliance, Britain was not expressly required to defend France and Russia, but Britain did promise not to fight against them.

Thus by 1908 one powerful group of three nations (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary), known as the Triple Alliance, stood against another powerful group of three nations (Britain, France and Russia), known as the Triple Entente. It was like one football team standing on a field opposite another football team, with both teams fully suited up. It doesn’t take much for someone to shout, “let’s play,” and the battle will begin. The “battle” became the first world war in history.

And what a devastating war it was. Never before in the history of the world was a war fought in such a deadly manner. With Christians on both sides, one might wonder how this could have happened. But this was long past the feudal times when fighting stopped on every Christian holiday. By 1914, leaders in both Germany on one side and Britain on the other had embraced deadly beliefs like the evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest, and many educated people felt that war was an essential, inevitable part of the improvement of the human race. Let the stronger race win, according to this theory.

== Igniting World War I ==

It was only a matter of time before something would ignite a conflict and cause one alliance to fight against the other. The Balkans in Eastern Europe was where the war began. The Ottoman empire had declined, leaving a power vacuum that European nations tried to fill. The Slavs in Serbia, with Russian support, wanted to unite all the Slavs in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary, which has a very small Slavic population, opposed this. Instead, Austria-Hungary wanted to control the Balkans rather than Russia.

In 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia (and Herzogovina), a region adjacent to its southeast (and east of Italy across the Adriatic Sea). But Bosnia was mostly Slavic while Austria was not, and this greatly angered the Slavic Serbia, which wanted to take Bosnia back. Why did Austria act at this particular time? Because there was a rebellion by the Committee of Union and Progress (the so-called “Young Turks”) that overthrew the Ottoman government, and the Austrian foreign minister Baron Aloys von Aerenthal saw a rare opportunity to act. He knew that Russia, which was Austria’s main adversary, was weak at this time due to its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and by an internal revolution in 1905.
In January 1909, the chief of staff of the Austrian army approached his German counterpart and asked what Germany would do if Austria next invaded Serbia and caused Russia to intervene on behalf of Serbia. Despite the original defensive nature of the Austria-German alliance, the Germany army officer said Germany would back Austria and Germany would also invade France because it was Russia’s ally. This is how it played out a few years later in the summer of 1914, as the struggle in the Balkans exploded into the First World War.

The War itself ignited on June 28, 1914, when the heir to the Austrian throne (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) was visiting the Bosnian capital city of Sarajevo along with his wife Sophie. It was an official visit, not a vacation, and crowds gathered to greet the couple. But a 19-year-old member of a youthful Bosnian resistance movement, Gavrilo Princip, shot the couple to death as they rode in an open automobile through the streets of Sarajevo. The killer was part of a large conspiracy and a bit earlier that day another member of the conspiracy had thrown a hand grenade at the Archduke. Princip was quickly captured and imprisoned, where he died of pneumonia a few years later.

Austria was obviously furious about the assassination and, with Germany’s support, demanded that Serbia end all resistance to Austria. Serbia agreed to some of the demands and offered to submit other demands to arbitration (decision) by an impartial international panel. But Austria would not wait; on July 28, 1914, it declared war against Serbia. Russian responded by mobilizing its army towards Austria and Germany.

This triggered the alliances. Germany responded to Russia’s mobilization of troops by declaring war on Russia four days later (on August 1st) and then Germany declared war on France another two days later (on August 3rd). Germany decided to invade and defeat France first before it had to fight Russia, and thereby avoid fighting a war on two fronts at the same time. This was the Schlieffen Plan to avoid a two-front war.

But Belgium, which was neutral, would not allow Germany to pass through its borders to invade France. So Germany invaded and defeated Belgium. Britain had a relationship with Belgium and Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914.

In summary, in a mere week an isolated act of violence between Austria and Serbia (sparked by a teenager) escalated into a world war between Britain, France and Russia (the Allied Powers) and Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers). Italy left the German side when it invaded the neutral Belgium, and later Italy joined the Allied Powers along with Japan. The Ottoman empire and Bulgaria eventually joined the Central Powers.

=== Initial Stages of the War ===

The fighting in the “Great War,” as it was called then (it is now called World War I), was savage and brutal. Army casualties totaled more than 37 million people, and there were another 10 million in civilian deaths. For weeks armies fought in trenches (deep, long ditches in the ground), spending day after day trying to kill their opponents lined up in an opposite trench several hundred feet away. This was known as trench warfare. Movement of ten or twenty feet in advance of a trench was a big success. Barbed wire marked off an area known as “no man’s land” between the two trenches, where anyone who went into this area would be shot on sight. Also, a deadly flu virus spread among the soldiers and infected the world, killing millions more. The late 1910s was a dreadful time for the world.

At the end of the war, the nations signed a peace agreement that was so misguided that it caused another great war to occur (World War II). So this World War I was bad news all around. Nothing was achieved by it. World War I was even pathetic in terms of military strategy. The first year and a half (1914-15) is known as “Entrenchment,” during which there were terrible casualties without either side gaining the upper hand. The next year, 1916, is known as “Continued Stalemate.” Get the idea? The following year, 1917, is known for the entrance by the United States and the withdrawal by Russia due to its communist revolution. In 1918 more nations withdrew from the war, and the major remaining nations of Britain, France, Germany and the United States ended the war with an armistice in November of that year.

=== The Colonies and the Great War ===

The colonies were not much help to the European powers, and attempting to use them for World War I left some bitterness. For example, Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which sought to forge a supply line to Russia. But these three colonies suffered heavy losses that left them bitter about Britain, and desirous of independence from the British empire.

Britain was successful in enlisting troops from the colonies of Egypt, India, Australia and New Zealand to defeat the weakened Ottomans. An Arab revolt against the Turks (German allies) was led by a British soldier named T. E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence, known as “Lawrence of Arabia.” His guerrilla warfare campaign against the Turks kept large numbers of troops tied up trying to suppress it, and it helped the British capture Aqaba and Damascus. Meanwhile, the Indian Mohandas Gandhi encouraged support of the British in the war as a way of building good will towards the Indian cause for independence. French colonies also lent some support to its efforts.

The German colonies could not help the Germans, because these colonies were captured by Allied Powers.

==World War I==

The “Great War,” which we now call World War I, lasted in Europe from 1914 to 1918. It was the first global war in world history. It was the first war that used aircraft, including airplanes and blimps. The “Bloody Red Baron,” made famous later by a humorous song featuring the dog “Snoopy”, was a German ace fighter pilot named Manfred von Richthofen (1892-1918). Considered the greatest fighter pilot ever, Richthofen shot down 80 enemy aircraft during the war before being killed by anti-aircraft fire from the ground.

World War I saw the first use of other weapons: machine guns, poisonous gas, large artillery and armored tanks. This war was a “total war” because the governments involved took control over the economy and factories, giving first priority to the goods needed for war. Wage and price controls were imposed, there was rationing of consumption of goods by civilians, and free speech was limited. Governments put out propaganda to maximize support for the war and dislike of the enemy.

With nearly all the young European men sent to battle, the women filled the factory jobs previously filled by men. Women tested munitions in factories, for example, and performed other strenuous jobs. Historians cite this shift in the workforce as being instrumental in changing attitudes about the proper role for women in society.

World War I was so deadly that it killed an entire generation of men. In 1918, a deadly strain of the influenza called the “Spanish flu” killed 20 million people, including both civilians and soldiers. In addition another 9 million soldiers were killed in battle, and 21 million injured. Hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman Turks as a “genocide” or racial cleansing. The Ottomans also deported nearly two million Armenians in retaliation for their support of the Allies.

As great as this cost of war was, the irony was that the war settled nothing and simply set the stage for another terrible world war about twenty years later. The Communist Revolution, which threatened the entire world for most of the 1900s, also occurred during World War I.

===The Two Sides===

On the side of the Central Powers were Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire. On other side were the Allies of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and, beginning in 1917, the United States.

Germany was still a very young country at the time of World War I. Recall that Germany became a nation under Otto von Bismarck in 1871, so it had only been in existence for a mere 43 years when hostilities broke out in 1914. But Germany had marvelous technology and a nationalistic spirit that did not expect to lose. Germany had a population of 68 million people in 1914, and had the best science and technology also. Germany feared no other nation, and had no reason to. It had every expectation to be able to defeat any European opponent.

===Great Battles of World War I===

This is easy, because there were not many great battles of World War I. It was mostly trench warfare, but highly deadly. Horrific poisonous gas was even used.

There were five great battles before large numbers of American soldiers reached Europe in 1917.

====First Battle of Marne====
[[Image:Schlieffen Plan.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Germany's Schieffen Plan, foiled by the First Battle of Marne]]
The First Battle of the Marne was a key conflict from September 6-12, 1914, which halted the Germany effort to capture France quickly and forced Germany to fight on two fronts afterward. Known to the French as the "Miracle of Marne," this battle saved the nation and Paris from German capture near the outset of the war. But the French losses were horrific: 250,000 men. German losses were similar. Still it was a victory for the Allied Powers in halting the German advance on the Western Front and thwarting the German Schlieffen Plan for winning the War.<ref>http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/plans.htm</ref> Russia, meanwhile, was not doing as well holding its own on the Eastern Front.<ref>Though tenacious in battle, Russia was not as industrialized as the West and its military was inferior.</ref>

====Gallipoli====

In April 1915, an amphibious Allied force landed on the Turkish peninsula of Gallipoli in a misguided attempt to knock Turkey out of the war. Though the Allies greatly outnumbered the Turks, Turkish fighters are extremely tenacious and they held their ground. The Allies did not properly understand the terrain and suffered from inadequate intelligence about the enemy. Nine months later the Allies had to withdraw, after suffering 46,000 deaths among over 250,000 casualties.

====Verdun====

In 1916, the Battle of Verdun between the French and Germans was perhaps the most demanding battle in world history. The struggle started when the Germans attacked Verdun, France, a city surrounded by a ring of underground forts. At least 220,000 soldiers died, and at least 480,000 were wounded in this 10-month struggle that accomplished nothing. At the end the front lines were in nearly the same locations as at the beginning.

====Somme====

Also in 1916, and also in France, the British and French armies met at the Somme River to begin a massive attack on the Germans in order to distract them from Verdun. This became the Battle of the Somme, and the fighting was even heard across the British channel in England. First the Allies “shelled” (fired many shots and bombs) at the Germans to weaken them, and then 100,000 British soldiers charged the enemy. But the shelling did not have its intended effect, as the Germans were dug in too deeply to be affected by it. On July 1, 1916, the Germans killed 20,000 of the British soldiers and wounded over 40,000, making it the single worst day for the British in their history. This battle, which did not succeed in moving trench lines, eventually involved over 2 million men along a 30-mile front. The British and French lost nearly 750,000 men.
 
====Third Battle of Ypres====
(Also known as the Battle of Passchendaele)

For 18 months the British hid 19 huge land mines underneath the German lines southeast of Ypres, Belgium, a location that had already seen battles in 1914 and 1915. The British then detonated those massive mines, and charged the German positions in July 1917. At first the strategy worked, as the Germans were confused and disorganized. But the British did not pursue the Germans as quickly as they should have. Rain began to drench the area in one of the wettest fall seasons there in years. Soon the British forces were stuck in a mountain of mud, and this Allied plan was yet another failure.

===The United States===

For three years (1914-1916) the United States attempted to stay out of the war. Europe had been having internal fights since the ancient time of the Greek empire, and the United States had friends on both sides of World War I. Many Americans were of German descent and sympathetic to the Central Powers, although most Americans were of British descent then (and now). If the United States were to intervene, then it was clear that it would enter the war on the side of the British, but most Americans were initially against getting involved.

The Germans were using submarines to patrol the Atlantic in order to intercept British ships. The German submarine was known as the “U-boat”, and it terrorized everyone. In 1915, still relatively early in the war, a U-boat sunk a massive British passenger liner known as the Lusitania. This one sinking killed 1,198 people, including 128 U.S. citizens. A member of the prominent Vanderbilt family, known for its railroad empire, was among the fatalities. The overall number of casualties was only a few hundred less than those who died on the Titanic when it hit an iceberg in 1912.

Americans were outraged by this German sneak attack on the Lusitania. But Germans claimed that the ship was carrying ammunition, and historians agree. Nevertheless, to avoid the loss of civilian life the Germans announced that it would stop attacking passenger liners and other neutral shipping.

By 1917, and after nearly three years of brutal war, the Germans were not so friendly any more. When the British implemented a naval blockade of Germany, preventing ships from entering or leaving its ports, the Germans announced they would sink any ship entering or leaving Britain. The U-boats went back into action and quickly sunk three American ships.

But many Americans, and the influential William Randolph Heart newspapers, were still against the United States entering this bloody European conflict. True, the Germans had sunk several American ships, but the Germans were simply doing what they must in response to the British blockade of Germany. Besides, the Germans warned the United States beforehand.

Another incident outraged Americans more. German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann sent an encrypted (secretly coded) telegram to the German ambassador to Mexico, which sought to induce Mexico to declare war on the United States. The British intelligence intercepted and deciphered (decoded) the telegram and gave it to the United States to help the British cause. President Woodrow Wilson made the contents of the telegram public.

The telegram promised that Germany would help Mexico regain land it had previously lost to the United States in the Mexican War (in the 1840s) if Mexico would declare war against the United States during World War I. Americans were outraged, and some newspapers doubted that the British self-serving version of the telegram was true. But then Zimmermann himself was foolish enough to confirm the promise (pledge) to Mexico in a public speech.

This news, plus the sinking of American ships by German submarines, swung American opinion towards entering the war against the Germans. Even though President Woodrow Wilson campaigned for the presidency on his promise to keep America out of World War I, he pushed Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2, 1917. The addition of the United States to the Allies tipped the power in their favor.
 
===Russia===

As the United States was entering the war on the side of the Allies, changes were occurring in Russia that would later cause it to withdraw from the side of the Allies and leave the war altogether. In 1917 Russia was having an internal revolution known as the Communist Revolution (discussed further below), which would alter the world for the rest of the century.

The losses and hardship of the war had weakened Russian Czar Nicholas II. He abdicated the throne in March 1917 in favor of a provisional government, which intended to continue fighting in the war. But in November 1917 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924), the leader of the Communist Party, overthrew the government. In July 1918, the communists executed every member of the czar’s family. (The bodies of two of the children have never been found, and years later a woman claimed to have been a girl in the family, but historians doubted it and DNA evidence did not support her claim.)

Lenin was one of the most influential persons in all of history. He was both a thinker and a revolutionary, which is a rare combination. An atheist, he personally converted in 1889 to Marxism (as previously formulated by Karl Marx). He obtained a law degree shortly afterwards, and by 1895 was a subversive who was arrested and sent to the frigid Siberia as punishment. Once he served his time he left for Western Europe, where he developed his ideas further and became a leader of the Bolsheviks. He returned to Russia after tsarist (czarist) rule ended in March 1917, and then Lenin led the Bolsheviks to power in the “October Revolution” (which was really in November under our Western calendar). He then ruled the Soviet Union and imposed a system of Marxism-Leninism (communism) that remained in force there until the 1990s.

Lenin quickly arranged for peace with Germany to end Russia’s support of the Allies in the war. In March 1918, Lenin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, by which Russia gave to Germany much territory, including what is now Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia. This was a humiliating defeat for Russia, but it was simply too weak to fight the Germans further.

===The Western Front===

The exit of Russia allowed Germany to shift all of its troops to the western front, saving Germany from having to continue a two-front war. Almost immediately it appeared that Germany would win, as it unleashed all of its power against France in March 1918.

The Germans launched five major campaigns in a four month period in 1918 on the Western Front. The Germans had technology and lots of energy. They had elite storm-troopers with automatic rifles, light machine guns, flame-throwers and artillery fire. They used poisonous mustard gas lavishly. They easily defeated the British Fifth Army. The Germans were advancing and taking property.

But fresh American troops entered the scene. In the Second Battle of the Marne in July 1918, the Allies started winning. Nine American divisions fought in this battle about 75 miles northeast of Paris. The Germans started this battle on another one of their offensives, but the Americans turned the tables and enabled the Allies to win it. Casualties were enormous for everyone, including the Americans. Former President Teddy Roosevelt’s son was killed in this battle.

American Capt. Jesse Woolridge, 38th Inf., 3rd Division described the battle as follows:<ref>http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/2marne.htm </ref>

:“It’s God’s truth that one Company of American soldiers beat and routed a full regiment of picked shock troops of the German Army ... At ten o’clock ... the Germans were carrying back wounded and dead [from] the river bank and we in our exhaustion let them do it - they carried back all but six hundred which we counted later and fifty-two machine guns... We had started with 251 men and 5 lieutenants...I had left 51 men and 2 second lieutenants ....”

As the Americans and the Allies advanced toward Germany, the Ottoman Turks and Bulgarians surrendered. There was a revolution in Austria-Hungary that overthrew its government, and Germany would not recognize that new government. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated his throne in Germany on November 1918, and the Germans formed a new republic. Members of the German republic signed an armistice (agreement to stop fighting) on November 11, 1918. The Great War was over.

===Terms of Peace===

The war ended in the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, but the terms of peace remained unresolved. The Allies convened at the historic Palace of Versailles outside Paris in January 1918 to discuss peace terms. The representatives at the Paris Peace Conference included Woodrow Wilson from the United States, David Lloyd George from Great Britain, Vittorio Orlando from Italy, and Georges Clemenceau from France.

President Wilson wanted his “Fourteen Points” adopted as the peace treaty. His proposal included moving national borders, creating new nations, and allowing ethnic groups to choose their own governments. His main point (#14) was to create a new entity known as the League of Nations to resolve international conflicts in the future. The American people never supported the League of Nations and the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty establishing it, and President Wilson died thinking he was a failure. But less than 30 years later the United States did join a similar entity known as the United Nations, though it remains controversial and many Americans oppose it.

France wanted to punish Germany for the war, while Britain wanted to disarm Germany. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, did both. It imposed limits on the size of the German army and prohibited it from having submarines, an air force, or factories to make weapons. It could not import weapons either. A “war guilt” clause placed all the blame for the war on Germany, and it was required to pay reparations of $33 billion over a 30-year period. Germany lost its colonies in Africa and the Pacific. Germany had to give its territory of Alsace-Lorraine to France. The Allies and neutral nations created the League of Nations, which the United States never joined, and Germany and Russia were initially prohibited from joining.

It is said that hindsight is always 20/20 (which describes perfect eyesight), and the mistake of the above approach seems so obvious today. No matter how wrong Germany was in World War I, it was an even bigger mistake to humiliate it and try to force it to pay far more than it could afford. Germany suffered huge losses like everyone else, and simply could not satisfy those financial obligations. In short, the peace treaty was too harsh on Germany, and it would rise again in anger to try to destroy its enemies.

The Allies negotiated separate treaties with each of Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire. These treaties created new countries of Austria, Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia out of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. Russia lost Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland and Latvia, which it had ceded to Germany in withdrawing from the war. Russia also lost Romania. All these territories became independent countries. The Allies took away territories in the Middle East (Southwest Asia) from the Ottoman empire, reducing it to present-day Turkey. The Middle East territories were then organized as mandates, such that France controlled Jordan and Syria and Britain controlled Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq.

The Treaty of Versailles angered many countries in addition to Germany. The U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, and instead chose to sign a separate treaty with the Central Powers later. Italy and Japan were unhappy that they did not receive new territory the way that France and Britain had. Colonies of European powers had sent soldiers to the Allied cause, and were upset that they did not receive independence. New countries were created by the Treaty of Versailles without regard to language or ethnicity, angering peoples affected by the arbitrary new borders. Most of the original members of the League of Nations were non-European countries, making it ineffective in its goal. But most of all, Germany was furious at the “guilt clause” and the massive reparations that it could not pay.

The United States and Japan emerged the strongest economically after the war, as their involvement was much less than for the other combatants, and the war was not fought on their soil. Business opportunities for these two nations were enormous after the war.

==Communism==

The taking root of communism in Russia during World War I was perhaps the single most important political event of the 1900s (the 20th century). It deserves greater study.

Communism, like it or not, is a powerful idea. It embodies this basic complaint known to every child: “That’s not fair.” Communism takes advantage of the very powerful human emotion of envy or jealousy. By forcing everyone to have the same wealth (or lack of wealth), communism creates a superficial equality for everyone.

Even Jesus’ Apostles complained about perceived advantages among each other, reflecting their human side. In one passage, Peter complained about what would become preferential treatment for John. In another passage, several Apostles complained about the request of James and John to sit next to Jesus in Heaven. But in many parables (like the [[Parable of the Talents]]), Jesus taught ''inequality'' rather than equality. It is clear that demands for equality in wealth are not based on Christianity, but are based on non-Christian materialism. Put another way, trying to require a superficial equality is based on man’s incomplete view, not God’s.

Why and how did communism begin in Russia in 1917? We learn that next.

===Pre-Revolution Russian Policies===

Russian czars were harsh on the peasants for decades before 1917. The Romanov czars who ruled Russia in the 1800s allowed severe shortages in fuel and bread for the peasants, and highly unequal land distribution. Russia did not convert quickly from a farming (agrarian) economy to an industrial one, and feudalism bound serfs to nobles far longer than in the West. Russian defeats in wars, such as the Crimean War, were hurtful. One of the reasons Russia kept losing wars was its inadequate industrialization and transportation for soldiers and supplies.

Czar Alexander II rose to power after the Crimean War and attempted to modernize the country. He freed the serfs in 1861, but then made them pay the Russian government for land, which the government was buying from nobles. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881.

Alexander III next became czar and continued the modernization of Russia. But he used a secret police to solidify his own power, and censored the press. He exiled political dissidents to the frightfully cold Siberia. He also oppressed ethnic minorities, such as the Jewish people, and made them live in segregated areas subject to “pogroms”, which was organized violence against them. Alexander III also forced everyone to speak Russian rather than ethnic languages.

Czar Alexander III’s son was Nicholas II, who became czar in 1894 and is now recognized as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church. As autocratic as his father, Nicholas II continued the attempt to modernize (industrialize) Russia. He used government to create railroads and factories. His regime built the Trans-Siberian Railway. But all this industrialization brought some problems, such as low wages and harsh working conditions.

===Early Signs of Revolution===

By the late 1800s the views of Karl Marx had reached Russia, and by 1903 there were two Marxist groups: the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks sought more industrialization before seeking support from the proletariat (working class) for a revolution. The Bolsheviks were more extreme, wanting a violent revolution by a small group of people as soon as possible. Their leader was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who was exiled in Europe but still in charge of his followers in Russia.

Russia next lost another war, this time humiliated by the small islands of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. The credibility of the czar was weakened. Then, in January 1905, workers and their families marched on the czar’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to present a petition for improve working conditions in factories and to request a national elected legislature as in western countries. Czar Nicholas II was not there, but his soldiers responded by shooting the protesters, killing up to 1000 of them.

More violent protests ensued, and Czar Nicholas II allowed the creation of the first-ever elected Russian parliament, called the Duma. It met initially in May 1906, when it was led by moderates trying to imitate the constitutional monarchy of Britain. But Nicholas dissolved the parliament after it met for only ten weeks. It did occasionally meet again in the future, but never seemed to have any power.

Once World War I broke out, Nicholas moved to the front lines and left his wife, Czarina (Tsarina) Alexandra, in charge of running the country. Alexandra’s son Alexis, however, developed a bleeding condition known as hemophilia, which means blood has difficulty clotting. A small cut just bleeds and bleeds in a frightful manner. His mother, the czarina, understandably was fraught with worry about his condition. She increasingly relied on the only person who seemed able to stop her son’s bleeding: a peasant-turned-monk named Rasputin. Rasputin took advantage of this trust and began making decisions for the country, granting government positions to friends, and causing everyone (especially the nobles) to fear him. Rasputin had a mystical quality that has inspired many books and stories about him. He had converted to Christianity at the age of 18 and when everyone else failed to help the boy’s bleeding disorder, Rasputin claimed healing powers that would help. The nobles hated Rasputin because he was a peasant who now had power over them, and the nobles plotted to assassinate him.

In a Russian tradition that continues to this day, the method of choice for assassination was poisoning. The nobles laced some pastries with enough poison to immediately kill a horse, and many times more what was necessary to kill a human immediately. Rasputin ate several of the pastries and seemed to enjoy it. He drank some wine. Nothing happened to him. His assassins watched and waited for hours. Rasputin was completely enjoying himself and showed no ill effects whatsoever from the massive dose of poison. Finally, after distracting Rasputin by pointing to a crucifix, a noble shot him point blank. Rasputin fell to the floor and appeared to die. His assassins left him there. But later, when one returned to make sure Rasputin was dead, he sprung to his feet and began shaking his assassin by his shoulders. Then Rasputin ran out, promising to tell the czarina. The assassins shot him again and again, and then beat him with a dumbbell, and he still was not dead. Then they tied him up and tossed him into the half-frozen river. He eventually died from drowning, on Dec. 17, 1916.

Meanwhile, peasant life was becoming more difficult. The war was taking its toll. Inflation was severe, and fuel and food were hard to find. Riots began in March 1917 to protest the hardship. A large protest against Czar Nicholas in March 1917 (the March Revolution) forced the czar to abdicate the throne (and not allow his heir Alexis to take it either). A provisional government was then established with Alexander Kerensky as the leader instead of a czar.

Kerensky continued the war despite the protests against poor conditions. Revolutionaries formed “soviets”, which were local groups of peasants or laborers, and which sometimes included soldiers. The Germans sent Lenin back to Russia in the hope of dividing Russia further and causing it to withdraw from the war. The German strategy worked, but at a huge price to the world.

===The Communist Revolution===
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|Lenin]]
Lenin arrived in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) in April 1917, and he quickly seized control for the Bolsheviks in the largest Russian cities. Then, in November 1917, he organized armed factory workers known as the Red Guards to march on the Winter Palace in Petrograd. There Lenin’s Red Guards arrested the leaders of the Russian provisional government.

Soon Lenin took ownership of the factories and gave control to the workers, and redistributed land among the peasants. He also ended the war with Germany, as described above.

The West was alarmed by these developments and supported a “White Army” to fight Lenin’s “Red Army.” Civil war resulted in Russia that lasted from 1918 to 1920, killing ten million people during the war, and another five million due a famine that followed the war. But the Red Army, headed by Leon Trotsky, won.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) had been a participant with Lenin in the communist revolution in Russia in 1917. Trotsky had joined the Bolsheviks and was part of the October Revolution. But when Lenin later died, Trotsky had a power struggle with Joseph Stalin. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in Western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately, and expelled Trotsky in 1927 from the political party and then exiled him entirely from Russia in 1929. Trotsky eventually settled in Mexico in 1937, where he was hunted down and murdered by a Stalin assassin posing as a gardener. Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement, “He that will not work shall not eat,” Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not '''''obey''''' do not eat.”

Communism and the Russian Civil War from 1818 to 1820 left the country in economic ruin. In March 1921, Lenin announced his New Economic Policy (NEP) to restore trade and industry to the country. The NEP permitted some capitalism to create incentives, and it allowed for some foreign investment. Peasants could sell surplus crops. Profits by merchants were allowed. But government still controlled all major industries. This small amount of private ownership applied only to small factories, farms and stores. Still, it helped improve the economy by 1928.

Politically, Lenin established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922, allowing Lenin’s central government to control many socialized republics. In 1924, the Bolsheviks began calling themselves “Communists” and established a constitution. But there was only one political party, and it held all the power. It was the Communist Party.

===Joseph Stalin===

As noted above, Joseph Stalin won the power struggle when Lenin died in 1924. Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.

Stalin was one of the worst murderers in the history of the world. He starved to death perhaps 20 million Ukrainians. He conducted the Great Purge from 1934 to 1939, in which he executed all opponents. He established youth groups to brainwash other youths in how great Stalin was, and how great communism was. He persecuted all religious groups and destroyed houses of worship. He controlled the press.

Stalin had women work in factories just like men, in addition to the women’s chores of homemaking and raising children. Stalin converted all schools into instruments of propaganda to teach students to love communism and worship the state. [[Abortion]] skyrocketed in Russia at rates many times the rest of the world. Alcoholism was rampant also.

Stalin continued to industrialize the Soviet Union, which included the former country of Russia along with many surrounding “soviets”. Stalin established a command economy whereby the government made all economic decisions. Under such a regime, shortages became widespread and people had to wait in line for hours to obtain basic necessities. Stalin announced a Five-Year Plan to try to increase production of industrial items like electricity, oil, steel and coal. This was a failure, although production did increase a bit. Stalin next tried a second Five-Year Plan to make up for the failure of the first one.

This was how the communist Stalin killed perhaps 20 million in the Ukraine. In 1928, Stalin seized millions of private farms, and combined them into large, government-owned farms. Stalin did this to punish the Ukrainian kulaks, who were wealthier peasants who had done well (through their own hard work) during Lenin’s NEP. Stalin’s enforcement of collective farming against the kulaks caused a huge famine in the Ukraine, and the famine resulted in the death of an estimated 20 million victims. In sum, the communist Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in world history, and also one of the dumbest.

 
==Nationalism in Eastern, Southern and Southwestern Asia==

===India===

The British did not grant independence to its colony of India immediately after World War I, as many Indians hoped. Great Britain had no intention of relinquishing this vast subcontinent in Asia, which was valuable strategically. To control rebellions in India, Britain passed a law in 1919 allowing imprisonment for two years without a jury trial. Hindus and Muslims alike sought independence instead, and formed a peaceful demonstration at Amritsar, which was the capital of the Punjab area. But a panicked British commander instructed his troops to fire on the Hindu and Muslim protesters, killing 400 in what is known as the Amritsar Massacre. Indians nationwide were outraged and demanded independence.

A spiritual Indian leader emerged who was ultimately able to win Indian independence: Mohandas K. Ghandi, known as the Mahatma (“Great Soul”). He urged peaceful civil disobedience against the British, calling on Indians to refuse to pay taxes to Britain and to refuse to attend British schools. He also called on Indians to stop trading with Britain, particularly with respect to clothing. Britain, which was itself being weakened by socialism, was not as strong economically as it used to be. Ghandi also campaigned for the Indian National Congress to change from an elite or wealthy group into more of a people’s voice that could advocate independence. Ghandi’s approach drew upon Christian concepts as well as his native Hinduism.

Ghandi supported peaceful protests. He led the Salt March in 1930 for 240 miles to the sea, to symbolize how Indians could obtain salt from evaporated salt water rather than buy it from (and pay taxes to) Britain. A law required Indians to buy salt from the British government, but Ghandi’s march peacefully disobeyed that law and created much publicity. Ghandi and many of his supporters were eventually arrested for some of their protests.

At one point a British leader agreed to meet with Ghandi, who then attended wearing the simple Hindu clothing of a single cloth gown. Offended by this, some British demanded an explanation for what appeared to them to be disrespectful clothing for a formal meeting. Ghandi responded that the British official, who was dressed up in a formal suit and tie, was wearing enough clothes for both of them!

Eventually Ghandi’s protest efforts paid off, as the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act in 1935. This established self-rule at a local level and allowed some democratic elections. Muslims, however, feared majority Hindu rule and requested a separate state for Muslims. The Muslim League endorsed the creation of a new country called “Pakistan” for the predominantly Muslim population of that region. Subsequently India and Pakistan were created, and they are fully independent today. Pakistan is predominantly Muslim and India is predominantly Hindu, and the two countries are not friendly with each other.

===China===

China was always independent, but it was not always a unified nation. The unified Qing dynasty ruled from 1664 to 1912, but it was overthrown by the Revolutionary Alliance, led by a doctor named Sun Yixian who had been living in the United States. Perhaps inspired by what he saw in America, Sun led the Nationalist Party ([[Guomindang]]) to become the first leader of the new republic China. Sun quickly turned over power (after only 6 weeks) to Yuan Shiakai, who then ruled as a military dictator.

When Yuan died, however, civil war broke out and warlords ruled amid chaos. The opium trade returned, irrigation failed, and World War I added to the general misery. Millions of peasants died due to a famine during the war. Lasting central rule was not achieved.

China sided with the Allies during World War I, and offered some limited assistance. China was hoping to obtain return of land that Germany controlled in China. Instead, the Treaty of Versailles gave that land to Japan. Feeling betrayed, the Chinese angrily demonstrated against that decision with the May Fourth Movement, which Guomindang supported.

Communism began to creep in China, and some abandoned Sun Yixian’s vision of democracy. Mao Zedong, a Marxist, founded the Chinese Communist Party in 1921 in Shanghai. Sun himself then accepted Lenin’s offer of receiving communist military advisers in China.

After Sun died in 1925, he was replaced as head of the Nationalist Party by a businessman named Jiang Jieshi who opposed communism and even executed communist leaders in April 1927. That destroyed the Chinese Communist Party, and Jiang became president of the Nationalist Republic of China in 1928. Britain and the United States recognized his government.

But gradually the Chinese Communist Party made inroads in China, advocating more land for peasants, speaking out against the practice of foot-binding, and seeking a right for women to divorce. The Party itself divided land that it controlled among peasants. Jiang’s government did not improve peasant life and became less and less democratic.

A civil war broke out between the Communists and Nationalists in 1930. Mao Zedong’s communist peasants received training in guerrilla warfare and fought hard. But Jiang’s army surrounded the Communist army, and in 1934 forced the communists to go on the Long March, which was a 6,000-mile retreat back to northwestern China. Few made it back alive.

Meanwhile an aggressive Japan invaded Manchuria, an area of northeast China rich in iron and coal deposits needed by Japanese industry. This Manchurian invasion was the beginning of World War II in Asia. Japan followed this with an invasion of China in 1937 along the Yangtze River. The Chinese civil war stopped temporarily to defend against the Japanese invasion.

===Southwest Asia===

There were three noteworthy nationalism movements in Southwest Asia in the early 20th century: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Persia (now Iran). All three are Muslim countries.

Turkey was formed in 1923, soon after the break-up of the Ottoman empire at the end of World War I and an invasion of Turkey by the Greeks in 1919. Mustafa Kemal was the leader who deposed the final Ottoman sultan in 1922, and then became the president of Turkey in 1923.

Although Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim, Kemal established secular rule through reliance on a strong military. He abolished Islamic courts and gave women the right to vote and the right to hold government positions. Kemal established a legal system based on that in the West. Today Turkey is the only Muslim country that uses democratic elections, not including the elections in Iraq protected by the United States military. But Turkey is run today more by military control than by democratic self-government; for example, the military bans the wearing of the popular head coverings for Muslim women in government buildings.

The British attempted to rule Persia (now Iran) after World War I, but the Muslims revolted and Reza Shah Pahlavi rose to power in 1925. In 1935 the name of the country changed from Persia to Iran. The shah enjoyed full power, like a king. He built the infrastructure and allowed greater rights for women than under Islam.

There was less modernization in Saudi Arabia, which was unified beginning in 1902 under the leadership of Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud, who named the country “Saudi Arabia” in 1932. Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s and 1930s, along with discoveries in Kuwait, Iran and Iraq. Western countries provided the technology for drilling the oil, but the Western dependency on that oil has been a source of conflict ever since.

==Science and Art in the Early 20th Century==

Once World War I ended, there were new achievements in science, technology, literature, music and architecture during the 1920s.

===Science===

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

The most notable 20th century accomplishment in science was the discovery of quantum mechanics by European physicists. This remarkable discovery of subatomic behavior ultimately produced about a dozen Nobel Prizes and is the basis for the entire computer industry today. The leading physicists included Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Max Planck of Germany, Enrico Fermi of Italy, Niels Bohr of Denmark, Erwin Schrödinger of Austria and Paul Dirac of England. Perhaps the most brilliant of the group was Enrico Fermi, who was a devout Christian extraordinary in both his experimental and theoretical accomplishments.

The insight of quantum mechanics was that subatomic particles act more like waves, and are never in a specific place at a specific time until they are observed. Quantum mechanics led to the development of small transistors, which today form the integrated circuits in every computer and electronic device, from cell phones to IPods to laptops to radios to digital clocks and to many other examples of technology.

'''The Theory of Relativity'''

Though quantum mechanics was the most productive scientific achievement of the 20th century, most people are more likely to have heard about the “theory of relativity,” which was also developed during that century. Unlike most advances in physics, the theory of relativity was proposed based on mathematical theory rather than observation. The theory rests on two postulates (assumptions) that are difficult to test, and then derives mathematically what the physical consequences should be. Those two postulates are that the speed of light never changes, and that all laws of physics are the same in every (inertial) frame of reference no matter where it is or how fast it is traveling. This theory rejects Newton’s view of gravitation and replaces it with a concept that there is a continuum of space and time, and that large masses (like the sun) bend space in a manner similar to how a finger can depress an area of a balloon. From this proposed bending of space the expression arose that “space is curved.”<ref>Later experiments demonstrated that space is not curved overall, and that it is actually flat.</ref>
[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|a drawing of how a signal would dip into a gravity well around the [[sun]] according to the theory of relativity]]
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and others promoted the theory of relativity. Contrary to public perception, the theory of relativity had nothing to do with the development of the atom bomb or any other technology. Only one Nobel Prize (in 1993) has ever been given that relates to relativity, and the validity of that particular award is questionable. Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons, have never been found despite expensive government projects (like “LIGO”<ref>http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/</ref>) that search for them. Many observed phenomena attributed to the theory of relativity, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton’s theory. The theory of relativity conflicts with quantum mechanics, and Einstein himself never accepted quantum mechanics.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Brit Sir Arthur Eddington, the top English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 to try to prove the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity predicts twice the bending of light around massive objects compared to Newton’s theory, and an eclipse is required to darken the sun so that the starlight may be seen in proximity to the sun. Eddington liked publicity and probably dreamed of winning a Nobel Prize, and upon his return to England declared that his observations proved the theory of relativity by observing the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. That was good enough for reporters and historians, but the Nobel committee was not impressed and declined to give him an award. Recent analysis of Eddington’s work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data was inconclusive about the theory of relativity.

Eddington then promoted the theory of relativity to the public in his book entitled the ''Mathematical Theory of Relativity'' (1923). As the title suggests, this theory was more a mathematical vision of how the universe should be, rather than what it actually was. When a reporter asked Eddington whether only three people even understood the theory, Eddington comically replied, “Who’s the third?” Later Eddington opposed a theory about massive stars known as white dwarfs put forth by Indian physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, but Eddington was proven wrong and Chandrasekhar won a Nobel Prize for his work. Eddington finally lost all credibility when he first insisted that a physical constant (the fine structure constant) measured to be close to 1/136 must precisely equal 1/136 to make the math easier, but when later measurements suggested a value closer to 1/137 Eddington insisted that it must precisely equal to 1/137 instead. He was wrong both times. When World War II threatened the future of England, Eddington was a conscious objector and refused to participate.

Just as “social Darwinism” arose from Darwinism, many seized upon the theory of relativity to apply it in a vague way to morality and social issues. “All things are relative” became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. As a law student, Barack Obama was given credit by a liberal professor in an article claiming that the theory of relativity could support a right to abortion. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity.

'''The Big Bang?'''

Another scientific controversy in the early 20th century concerned whether there was an origin or initial moment for the universe. Increasingly some physicists insisted in the 1920s was that the universe must have always existed in a “steady state,” and that creation was myth. But in 1927 a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges-Henri Lemaître, proposed that the universe must have begun in an initial massive “explosion” like a creation. He was ridiculed for years, with one prominent physicist making fun of his hypothesis by calling it the “Big Bang.” But in 1929, Edwin Hubble, another devout Christian, discovered evidence supporting the “Big Bang” and now most physicists accept this theory (and the name, even though it was first used to make fun of the theory). Research in the 1960s in central New Jersey discovered further support for the Big Bang, for which the Bell Labs scientists received the Nobel Prize.

'''Other 20th Century Theories'''

Other thinkers in the early 1900s included Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). He was the atheistic father of psychoanalysis, emphasizing the supposed importance of one’s unconscious mind and symbolic dreams. He was a professor in Vienna, Austria. In 1938 he fled the Nazis by traveling to England, where he was welcomed and became popular due to his atheism. Freud proposed that the human psyche consists of three parts -- ego, super-ego, and id -- and that defense mechanisms are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id. A “Freudian slip” is something mistakenly spoken that supposedly reflects a view of one’s subconscious. Critics of Freud point out that he fabricated some of his data in order to make some of his claims. Late in life, Freud asked his doctor to kill him, which his doctor did.

===Technology===

The mass production of affordable cars had a tremendous effect on society, influencing everything from teenage life to families moving to the suburbs with the father commuting to work each day. Arrival of the airplane also had an enormous impact, with Charles Lindbergh flying solo for the first time from New York to Paris in 1927. Amelia Earhart was the first woman to cross the Atlantic by solo flight, in 1932.

In 1920, KDKA in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, became the first commercial radio station, and radio quickly developed into the center of entertainment for families. Use of radio spread most quickly in the United States, where there is freedom of speech, and slowly in other countries where speech is controlled or regulated by the government. Movies caught on in the 1920s in silent form and then, with sound, in the late 1930s. ''The Wizard of Oz'' in 1939 was the first color movie.

===Literature and Philosophy===

After World War I several novels deplored the apparent meaninglessness of that war, and war in general. In ''All Quiet on the Western Front'' (1929), World War I veteran Erich Maria Remarque describes the war in an unflattering way from the perspective of German soldiers. American Ernest Hemingway’s ''A Farewell to Arms'' (1929) was also critical of war.

Author and attorney Franz Kafka penned several classic stories illustrating how humans are alienated from a hostile, unintelligible and indifferent modern world. Several of his works became classics after Kafka died, including ''The Trial'' (1925) and ''The Castle'' (1926). In ''The Trial'', an innocent man finds himself a defendant in a trial that he cannot understand, and he is sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t do. Kafka’s most famous short story was ''The Metamorphosis'' (1915), in which someone awakens to realize that he has been transformed into a massive cockroach that has been fatally injured. Throughout Kafka’s works he expressed and sympathized with the feeling of being an outsider, of being someone who is not in the “in group.” Kafka himself lacked religion and suffered from bouts of insanity as he grew older.

Philosophers increasingly abandoned religion. Frenchman Jean Paul Sartre and the German Karl Jaspers advanced a new philosophy called “existentialism”, which taught that life has no meaning at all and that neither God not morality exist. Existentialism was a rebellion against all philosophy, seeking freedom for each person to form whatever value system he likes. Rather than "I think therefore I am," and existentialist might say, "I exist therefore I think." An atheist, Sartre’s most famous work was ''L'âge de raison'' (''The Age of Reason'') (1945). Towards the end of his life he expressed sympathy with the terrorists who kidnapped and killed Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, asserting that it was “perfectly scandalous” how the French press criticized the terrorism.

Prior work in the 1800s by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the basis for the existentialism movement in the 1900s. Nietzsche is famous for his statement that “God is dead.” Nietzsche criticized Western democracy, preferring instead rule by elitist groups who could become almost superhuman through effort and courage. Nietzsche himself went insane later in life, but many Germans promoted his ideas after World War I as Germans struggled to find self-esteem.

===Music and Art===

Americans made one of its rare artistic contributions to the world in the form of jazz, a new style of music developed in New Orleans in the 1920s. It used irregular tempo and rhythms and combined African American music with European traditions. New dance styles also became popular, including the Charleston dance that featured much movement.

In ''The Rite of Spring'' (1913), Russian-born composer Igor Stravinsky broke with traditional views of music by having different musical instruments play in different keys simultaneously.

Architect Frank Lloyd Wright became world-renowned for his building design, which emphasized functionalism. Architect Walter Gropius of Germany founded the Bauhaus school to expand on Wright’s work. Both felt that new buildings should feature designs that encouraged movement and facilitated the intended use. Wright’s most famous designs are the Guggenheim Museum in upper Manhattan and the Falling Water house in rural Pennsylvania.

In paintings, expressionism emerged based on distorted forms and bold colors. Pablo Picasso, the most famous artist of the 20th century, had a style that became known as “cubism”, which modified the images of his subjects to fit geometric shapes. Just as existentialism questioned the meaning of life, an artistic movement called Dadaism (1916-1924) consisted of artwork that emphasized meaningless and arbitrary designs. Later Surrealism produced art that appeared dreamlike.

==Postwar Europe==

After World War I, there were no major monarchies left in Europe. Nations turned to democracy, but were not always well-prepared for it. Numerous political parties formed, and in the parliamentary system of democracy common in Europe, coalitions are required among several political parties to form a majority that can rule. (In a parliamentary system, a coalition of political parties runs both the executive and legislative branches together, and there is no separation of powers like in the United States.) It took time for European people to adjust to a parliamentary democracy in place of a monarchy.

Germany struggled with democracy in its new Weimar Republic. This government was already disliked by the German people for having signed the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. The huge reparations required by that Treaty caused an even bigger problem. Germany simply could not pay.

So Germany began printing money, and lots of it. This made it easier for Germany to pay its reparations, but caused enormous inflation in Germany. People were outraged at the loss in value of their savings, and hardship resulted as the German mark (its currency) became almost worthless. The German people disapproved even more of their own government.

An international committee funded by the United States and England intervened to try to save German’s economy. The Dawes Plan, named after American financier Charles G. Dawes, implemented in 1924 the committee’s recommendations that Germany begin paying 1,000,000,000 gold marks in the first year and increasing to 2,500,000,000 by 1928. It also called for a loan of 800,000,000 marks ($200 million) to Germany. The Dawes Plan ignored the original reparations set by the Treaty of Versailles. By 1929 the Dawes Plan was considered a big success and financial controls over Germany were relaxed. Germany factories were producing again at prewar levels and inflation was no longer a big problem.

World leaders made a silly attempt to agree to peace in the future. In 1925, the French and German prime ministers signed a treaty stating that the two countries would never go to war against each other again. Gustav Stresemann was the German prime minister and Aristide Briand was the French prime minister. Germany agreed to honor the current borders of France and Belgium, and as a result was admitted to the League of Nations. This agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, because there was no way to enforce.

In 1928 Briand then signed a similar agreement with Frank Kellogg, the Secretary of State for the United States. This Kellogg-Briand Pact prohibited war, and was signed by almost every country. But it was silly because it could not be enforced. It would take a war to make a country comply with it!

==The Great Depression==

The complex political alliances that led to World War I were replaced by a complex set of financial relations after World War I. The Great War was very, very expensive and there were many debts to pay off after the war. But in order for Britain and France to pay their debts to the United States, Germany had to pay reparations to Britain and France. In order for Germany to be able to reparations, it had to receive loans from American banks and also benefit from a strong global market. Meanwhile, colonies were already beginning to struggle due to a decreased demand in raw materials by industrialized nations, which had learned to make more with less. Any economic downturn in a major country could have set off a financial chain reaction that would be hurtful to all. In 1928 American lenders did begin pulling money out of Europe to invest in the more successful American stock market, and that was an early warning sign of potential trouble.

The American economy had been booming during the “Roaring Twenties” (1920s). Everything looked good. In 1920, the politically conservative President Warren Harding was elected president. He favored limited government so that free enterprise could thrive, and his economic policies benefited the nation and the world for a decade.

But President Harding died from an illness in 1923. He was succeeded by his Vice President Calvin Coolidge, who was conservative but not as much as Harding. When Coolidge declined to run for reelection in 1928, Republican Herbert Hoover took office. In his first year in office, on “Black Thursday” Oct. 24, 1929, the stock market in New York crashed. Stock prices plummeted and many lost everything. This was the beginning the Great Depression in the United States, which then pulled down the economies in European nations also.

Economists debate the possible causes of the Great Depression to this day. There is no consensus in favor of one single cause. There is no apparent reason why a drop in stock market value alone would cause a massive depression. Only those owning the stocks that fell in value were immediately hurt. But many had bought stock “on margin,” which means on a mere promise to pay. When their stocks fell in value, those buyers could not pay their obligations on stock they had already purchased. That means the losses were felt far beyond the stock owners, and were felt by many others in the economy, including banks. Laws changed afterwards to guard against this ripple effect. The stock market crash hurt public confidence, and people stopped buying things. It was a vicious cycle.

Perhaps it was an overreaction by government that really caused the Great Depression. Economists criticize the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930, which imposed high trade barriers on imports to protect American manufacturers, as a huge mistake. Foreigners retaliated by refusing to buy American products, and factories, banks and stores closed in increasing numbers. Unemployment that was only 5 million in 1930 skyrocketed to 13 million in 1932. The Great Depression had hit.

The effects of the Great Depression were clearer than its cause. Weaker American banks meant weaker European banks. Leaders were voted out of office worldwide. In the United States, voters replaced Republican Herbert Hoover with Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who instituted the “New Deal” by which government assisted farms and business and created public projects to generate jobs. The program was unsuccessful in pulling the country out of the depression, and probably delayed economic recovery.

Island countries like Great Britain and Japan were hit hardest because they depended most on trade rather than farming. Voters replaced the liberal Labour Party in Britain with conservatives in 1931, but tariffs and taxes increased anyway. In Japan, its silk export industry collapsed and it struggled to pay for fuel. It turned to a stronger military to acquire what it needed.

For Scandinavia and Latin America, the depression meant more government control. The governments in the socialistic Scandinavian countries increased their aid to citizens and protected retirement funds. In Latin America, government increased planning and asserted more independence from the U.S. and Europe.

France was not hurt as badly due to its strong farming economy. But a coalition of communists, socialists and moderates formed the Popular Front to enact laws to help workers, including pay increases and a maximum 40-hour work week. Inflation took away any gains for workers by decreasing the real value of their earnings, and unemployment remained high.

== References ==

<references/>
 

[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 11}}

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-20T19:21:41Z

BHarlan: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ "historical claims"

Apple Inc.

2009-04-20T16:21:26Z

BHarlan: we don't whitewash the liberal agenda here

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage and have since became one of the biggest tech companies around. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching." <ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Job's illegitimate daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next huge Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]], the first [[desktop publishing|Desktop Publisher]] ever created. Using it, small companies could make official-looking documents, a milestone in technology history. The application ran exclusively on the Macintosh. The Macintosh was famous for it's "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The Macintosh was the first device to have a Graphic User Interface (GUI). The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh was a great computer but there were three major flaws. First, it only had six applications. Secondly the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics." Lastly, the device was not expandable.

=== The Apple IIg ===

The Apple IIg was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven. This was an amazing and unheard of innovation.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:information technology]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-17T20:03:58Z

BHarlan: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ naziism

World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-17T19:37:47Z

BHarlan: no authority or expertise: Undo revision 653601 by ClementB (Talk)

Exact sciences

2009-04-16T00:50:53Z

BHarlan:

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on guesses using presupposed naturalism. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], [[quasar]]s, the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-04-16T00:50:09Z

BHarlan: clean up

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on guesses using presupposed naturalism. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-04-15T17:50:38Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 652980 by Stitch75 (Talk)

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Gambling

2009-04-10T05:23:34Z

BHarlan: /* Please Explain Edit Revisions */

Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal. It isn't, actually. Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling. An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't. In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2610:] [[User:TheEngineer|TheEngineer]] 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

==Please Explain Edit Revisions==

I changed '''Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ...''' with '''The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting...''' Why is this being reverted? I think this makes the article better. By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive. I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling. And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating? --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 01:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Only some chess games are gambling. Chess by itself is not gambling, any more than other things a liberal could bet on, like the outcome of a surgical procedure. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:23, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Gambling

2009-04-10T05:19:52Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 651102 by PaulLaroque (Talk)

'''Gambling''' is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting of betting on games of chance. Sometimes the game entails some skill as an attraction, as in [[poker]]. Gambling also includes betting on sporting events, or on events such as election results. [[Lottery|Lotteries]] are a common form of gambling, with a small stake being bet for the very low probability of winning a very large amount of money, if the numbers a player chooses are selected by a random number picking device.

Many tragedies result from addiction to gambling, such as losing all of one's money in a single gambling spree. Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].

In games played against the "house" (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. For example, in roulette, in the case of a 0 or 00 result, the money bet goes to the casino. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the "house" takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%.

==Legality of Gambling==

Several times in American history gambling has gone from being illegal, to being legal in many areas, to becoming illegal again. Gambling is typically regulated at the state and local levels, but Congress passed a bill prohibiting internet gambling in 2006.

In 2005, the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) ruled that "the U.S. had failed to comply with a 2005 final WTO order to change certain laws related to a successful
challenge by Antigua of the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The WTO GATS agreement allows nations to 'take back' service sectors from WTO jurisdiction, but only after compensating trading partners for lost business opportunities."<ref>http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/</ref>

In response to a request by more than half the states, in 2007 President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew the United States gambling sector from jurisdiction under the [[World Trade Organization]], in anticipation of further demands or sanctions by the WTO against American regulation of gambling.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

Following passage of UIGEA, former Republican U.S. Senator [[Al D'Amato]] joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to lobby for the right of poker players to play online.

On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA). The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?". Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml</ref>. Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.

On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill. Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act. The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.

On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm</ref> of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web<ref>http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html</ref>. According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.

== Gambling Loss Limit ==

The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons. The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day. This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering.

Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler. Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org</ref>. This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html</ref> In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html</ref>

The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money. “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit money laundering by drug cartels and terrorist organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations o n casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises. An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html</ref> A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:gambling]]

Talk:Gambling

2009-04-10T05:17:40Z

BHarlan: /* Please Explain Edit Revisions */

Gambling

2009-04-10T05:14:53Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 651099 by PaulLaroque (Talk)

Gambling

2009-04-10T04:54:28Z

BHarlan: RV LIEBERAL!!! NEED HSLP!!! Undo revision 651084 by PaulLaroque (Talk)

Talk:Canada

2009-04-10T04:53:27Z

BHarlan: /* First Paragraph */

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness in this entry ==

Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel? That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals. As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented. In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles. There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007

:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== previously reverted edits ==

I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres! Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem. ''If there is, please let me know.'' I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that "life is normal." I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

There actually is no "Canadian grading system" because, as the article points out, education is a provincial responsibility. In fact it varies among institutions within individual provinces. Generally speaking, institutions with lower grades required to pass have higher marking standards. An example is that passing grades at community colleges are usually higher than at universities. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:02, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sea to sea not from the bible ==

In none of the references of this article is it claimed the origin of the expression "sea to sea" is grounded in the bible, thus I have modified this line.

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") [1]"

to be

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"

[[User:Qc|Qc]] 16:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it is, Canada's Motto is based on "From Sea to Sea" from Psalm 72:8. (See http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm) There was a Private Member's Bill in 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/northern-motto060310.html) to change it to "From Sea to Sea to Sea" (That is the [[Atlantic]], [[Pacific]] and [[Arctic]] Ocean's that proposed a change, but it did not pan out, like most Private Member's bills.

I would suggest we change it back, but I'll add the reference from the Canadian Heritage Website.
--[[User:Thornhiller|Thornhiller]] 19:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Canada's Economy ==

Why isn't there any mention of its nominal gdp ? it's close to 1.5 trillion dollars, between Spain and Brazil.
ppp gdp is good to use when you're comparing the economies of poor countries to rich countries but it's not realistic. What makes more sense, Iran's economy is the same size as Australia's, or it's much smaller than Denmark's ?

==culture and education==
The section on education grade scales is incorrect, it is up to individual schools, and universites to decide their own grade scales. Also, how is stating Canada doesn't do well in the summer olympics relevant to our culture?

==Canadian Healthcare==

Is this meant to be a joke? I'm not sure exactly where you're getting these figures for wait times, but as a former administrative employee in a Montreal hospital, I can most assuredly say that the figures are not in the least bit accurate. Non critical surgeries do have wait times, but they are substantially less than the "four to eight months" this article claims. Critical life threatening surgeries are seen to immediately.

Non surgical care (which is not mentioned in this article yet of great importance) is also leaps and bounds above established private services. My grandmother, who is currently 98 years of age, has broken her hip twice in the past five years and received an outstanding level of care from hospitals (free service), care homes (also free), physiotherapists (once more, free) and social caretakers who go to her house (you guessed it, free)both times.

In addition, the cost and availability of pharmaceutical products is not discussed. Medicines essential to life are freely distributed at hospitals, prescription medications are available at pharmacies for a nominal service charge (which is rarely far above 20$ in my experience), whereas over the counter drugs are readily available at prices equal to other First World nations.

I would ask that this article be improved and the facts straightened out, because this sounds very much like a broken Ronald Regan recording. [[User:MrCrawford|MrCrawford]] 14:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you have good sources for what you stated, you are welcome to make improvements. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==style points==
I used ''The Canadian Style'', item 2.16 for the plural of "lieutenant governor" [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 23:49, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== In the spirit of the main page... ==
Should we add a section on "Canadians and uncharitableness"? ;)--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== First Paragraph ==

Shouldn't the first sentence just say that Canada is a country and maybe pinpoint it geographically rather than compare it to USA? I'm going to do a rewrite if no one objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:51, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Check our logo. I object to all of your edits so far, most of which are LIEberal carping. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:53, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and morality

2009-04-10T04:39:56Z

BHarlan: /* Inappropriate Comment */

== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate Comment ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

<blockquote> Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. </blockquote>

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and suicide

2009-04-10T04:35:21Z

BHarlan: /* Unlock? */

==Bill Muehlenberg==

What on earth does his quote have to do with atheism and suicide? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Can we please unlock this article? Are the first quotes from an article written over 100 years ago valid any more? Why is 75% of this article comprised entirely of block quotes? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. A quote from 1894 is questionable at best. Please unlock. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::Do you believe that man has grown smarter in the last one hundred years, despite the evidence of increased Naziism, Darwinism, Communism, etc.? Perhaps you had better study before you request permission to vandalize/censor again, as you did in your last earlier edit! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:35, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Atheism and morality

2009-04-10T04:31:57Z

BHarlan: ev LIEberl vandlsm Undo revision 651071 by PaulLaroque (Talk)

In regards to '''atheism and morality''', the Barna Group found that [[Atheism|atheists]]/[[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior, and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Bible]] prohibition against [[homosexuality]] is quite arguably one of the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]].

Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. [[Kai Nielson]]:
{{cquote|He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, "I have a reason why we should be moral." He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen5.html</ref>}}

Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding [[atheism]] and [[Moral relativism|moral relativism]]:
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of "supermen" must arise with the courage to create their own values through their "will to power." Nietzsche rejected the "soft" values of [[Christianity]] (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Bertrand Russell]]]]
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.

There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/refuting_moral_relativism.htm</ref>}}

[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

In addition, there is the historical matter of [[Atheism and deception|deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward]] plus the issue of [[Atheism and Mass Murder|of atheistic ideology of communism being involved in the greatest mass murder of mankind in world history.]]
==Atheism and Uncharitableness==
[[Per capita]] atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.</ref><ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref><ref>Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Morality]]
*[[Atheism and Mass Murder]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Talk:Exact sciences

2009-04-07T20:04:00Z

BHarlan: /* This article is ironic, i hope. */ ::::Read up on GPS -- it does not need relativity. I have reverted your censorship. ~~~~

==Witnessing Evolution==

Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:By evolution, I mean the [[theory of evolution through natural selection]], which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.

:Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which [[aspects of evolution]] we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see [[microevolution]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Perhaps it was just a contemporary witnessing of [[adaptation]] - an ability it's designer gave it to deal with differing environmental contexts. --[[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] [[User talk:Qwestor|Talk]] 11:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

==Creation Science==
Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:JoshuaStanley|JoshuaStanley]] 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::I see that creation science and baraminology have both been removed from the exact sciences list. I regard that as an error. There is nothing fuzzy at all about creation. It is based on scripture and is as precise as any of the listed items. In fact it is probably more precise than any of them. It is in no way comparable to evolution which consists of guesses and speculation. If any of you can provide a cogent reason for the exclusion of creation science and baraminology then please do so. If not I intend to replace them. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 18:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Meteorology ==

I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== This article is ironic, i hope. ==

I dont see how proof by contradiction is not as valid as the rest of mathematics. If you ask "is theorem a true?"and you mange to construct a contradiction based on theorem a, then you know it is not true.

I don't see how astronomy is not an exact science. As a matter of fact it is the first exact science on the planet and the mother of physics. No astronomer conceals that black holes are still unclear subjects and that the exact way in which the universe began is still a matter of active research.

I dont see why relativity should be excluded from physics.

I save my breath and don't talk about the rest.

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:34, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

:I think it is your attitude that keeps getting you blocked. Nobody is perfect, though!
:I suggest you read the reference before spouting off. Many conservatives support constructive proof. See also "[[Axiom of Choice]]".
:Modern atheist astronomy has brought us mostly absurdities, from black holes to quasars to relativity.
:You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! Beware, though: some of the things you learn may take your breath away! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Since I seem, despite holding a Phd in Physics and being not among the worst in mathematics among my fellow students, not being able to understand the 'conservative' mathematics, let me ask a simple question: in there any proof which can be carried out by contradiction, which can be shown to be wrong by other means? (i exclude Quines explicitely here). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::We can discuss about black holes, but i would not see how relativity was found by astronomy alone. At least I was under the impression that relativity was needed to allow the Maxwell equations to exist. Finally the Michelson-Morley (and earth-bound interferometer) experiment suggested that aether does not exist. Last but not least the GPS systems constructed by the DoD and used heavily by the American armed Forces includes such obscure things as general relativity in its software. You surely don't suggest that the DoD and the American soldiers stick to atheistic snake oil? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Read up on GPS -- it does not need relativity. I have reverted your censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:04, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Exact sciences

2009-04-07T20:02:29Z

BHarlan: /* This article is ironic, i hope. */ do not interrupt

==Witnessing Evolution==

Wasn't the whole point of the Lenski Experiment that it provided conclusive evidence of bacteria evolving a useful trait over thousands of generations, and the specimens that inherited the trait thrived compared to those that did not? That would be a contemporary witnessing of evolution, I'd think. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:By evolution, I mean the [[theory of evolution through natural selection]], which posits that significant new species have come into being without intelligent intervention.

:Whenever we discuss evolution, we need to cut through the mental fog and specify which [[aspects of evolution]] we're talking about. Most evolution opponents grant that a species can develop new characteristics in the wild (see [[microevolution]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:26, 21 February 2009 (EST)

:Perhaps it was just a contemporary witnessing of [[adaptation]] - an ability it's designer gave it to deal with differing environmental contexts. --[[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] [[User talk:Qwestor|Talk]] 11:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

==Creation Science==
Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:JoshuaStanley|JoshuaStanley]] 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::I see that creation science and baraminology have both been removed from the exact sciences list. I regard that as an error. There is nothing fuzzy at all about creation. It is based on scripture and is as precise as any of the listed items. In fact it is probably more precise than any of them. It is in no way comparable to evolution which consists of guesses and speculation. If any of you can provide a cogent reason for the exclusion of creation science and baraminology then please do so. If not I intend to replace them. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 18:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Meteorology ==

I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

== This article is ironic, i hope. ==

I dont see how proof by contradiction is not as valid as the rest of mathematics. If you ask "is theorem a true?"and you mange to construct a contradiction based on theorem a, then you know it is not true.

I don't see how astronomy is not an exact science. As a matter of fact it is the first exact science on the planet and the mother of physics. No astronomer conceals that black holes are still unclear subjects and that the exact way in which the universe began is still a matter of active research.

I dont see why relativity should be excluded from physics.

I save my breath and don't talk about the rest.

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:34, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

:I think it is your attitude that keeps getting you blocked. Nobody is perfect, though!
:I suggest you read the reference before spouting off. Many conservatives support constructive proof. See also "[[Axiom of Choice]]".
:Modern atheist astronomy has brought us mostly absurdities, from black holes to quasars to relativity.
:You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! Beware, though: some of the things you learn may take your breath away! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Since I seem, despite holding a Phd in Physics and being not among the worst in mathematics among my fellow students, not being able to understand the 'conservative' mathematics, let me ask a simple question: in there any proof which can be carried out by contradiction, which can be shown to be wrong by other means? (i exclude Quines explicitely here). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::We can discuss about black holes, but i would not see how relativity was found by astronomy alone. At least I was under the impression that relativity was needed to allow the Maxwell equations to exist. Finally the Michelson-Morley (and earth-bound interferometer) experiment suggested that aether does not exist. Last but not least the GPS systems constructed by the DoD and used heavily by the American armed Forces includes such obscure things as general relativity in its software. You surely don't suggest that the DoD and the American soldiers stick to atheistic snake oil? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Ok since nobody contradicted the arguments on relativity, i suggest to stop excepting it from the exact sciences. Moreover i suggest to put "biology" instead of evolution. One is a science, the other a process. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 15:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Exact sciences

2009-04-07T20:00:58Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 649882 by Stitch75 (Talk)

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-04-01T22:10:56Z

BHarlan: /* New word */ :I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. ~~~~

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==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)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and take advantage of it, but spend their effort criticizing it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-03-27T03:35:46Z

BHarlan: /* More regarding the criticism of LIGO */ a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is?

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::It's been nearly 2 years since your message above, and LIGO has been operational for nearly 7 years. Do you really insist on waiting a full 10 years (after spending a billion dollars) before allowing some accountability? LIGO soaked up a ton of research money that could have been spent on promising technology and potential cures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45x10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this, -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does '''not''' include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

::: The remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah. Sure. You, with only a mediocre grasp on the process of writing have a proof simple enough to put on wikipedia, yet it has evaded the planet's most brilliant scientists and mathematicians, essentially the brightest men in human history, for a century. I'd like to see this. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, I did some basic googling, and find that you've been going on about this for several years now, but have a pitifully poor grasp of relativistic theory. Well... welcome to Conservapedia, I guess. We're nothing if not openminded. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you. --kfratus

: What are you talking about? The article has only one simple sentence about LIGO. Is that sentence correct or not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: First, if you'll take a closer look at the talk page, you'll notice that there has been a good amount of discussion of the usefulness of LIGO, and that was what I was principally referencing. Secondly, the article in reality contains three sentences that in some way reference LIGO, albeit only one of them by name. The last sentence specifically mentions LIGO, the second sentence is clearly directly referencing LIGO without naming it, and the first claims that research involving the theory of relativity receives a disproportionate amount of funding. I would regard the first of those sentences as a matter of scientific opinion, which I addressed in my comments by pointing out how much impact LIGO could have on the entire astronomy community. The second and third sentences may not be incorrect, so much as they are worded as half truths. LIGO has been unsuccessful, or has failed, to detect graitational waves so far. To assert that LIGO has been unsuccessful in general would be entirely untrue, and is completely dependent on your notion of the "success" of the experiment, which I also addressed - LIGO has indeed managed to reach its target sensitivity, and whether or not they manage to detect gravitational waves, their results will still have a huge impact on the field of physics, which I would consider a successful experiment. --kfratus

:::Hopefully, when LIGO disproves so-called "[http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gravity+waves gravity waves]", a relativist working on the project will be honest enough to call LIGO what it is. In this way, LIGO may end up being a very, very expensive way of '''disproving''' relativity, once and for all.
:::I doubt it, though, with all that grant money on the line. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Quasar

2009-03-23T04:32:02Z

BHarlan: more accurate

A '''Quasar''' (abbreviation for of "quasi-stellar radio source") is a star or galaxy that astronomers can't explain. This is why the name contains "quasi", a word that allows any explanation to fit the data, making the explanations useless.

Some astronomers claim that these are large galaxies from very far away, but this relies on the assumption of the [[Big Bang]]. If the objects are as far away as they claim, they (the objects, not the astronomers) are very, very bright. The astronomers who think they are so far away have no explanation of how these objects might have formed.

These objects, along with black holes, white holes, and worm holes, are the stuff of sci-fi magazines. They are very entertaining to think about, but we do not have solid evidence yet nailing down their nature. Astronomers, funded by the NSF, draw premature conclusions in search of government largess.

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Exact sciences

2009-03-23T04:25:40Z

BHarlan: /* This article is ironic, i hope. */ :You could use your breath to continue breathing as you read up on these subjects at this quickly-expanding resource, Conservapedia! ~~~~

Exact sciences

2009-03-22T22:27:05Z

BHarlan:

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-03-22T22:24:23Z

BHarlan: Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])<ref>For more discussion, see: [[Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math]]</ref>
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-03-22T22:21:53Z

BHarlan: excepting non-constructive mathematics, like proof by contradiction

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]] (excepting non-constructive mathematics, like [[proof by contradiction]])
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

[[Category:Science]]

Exact sciences

2009-03-22T22:20:31Z

BHarlan: *astronomy (especially black holes, the Big Bang theory)

The '''exact sciences''' actually measure what they study, as opposed to the "fuzzy subjects" which mostly engage in uninformed speculation. Evolution is a "fuzzy subject" subject because it cannot be witnessed, but rather is based on secular guesses using existing evidence. Needless to say, exact sciences are far more accurate than fuzzy subjects.

==Topics==
*[[mathematics]]
*[[astronomy]]
*[[physics]] (excepting [[relativity]])
*[[chemistry]]
*[[volcanology]]
*[[seismology]]
*[[creation science]]
*[[baraminology]]

==Fuzzy subjects==
*[[evolution]]
*[[paleontology]]
*[[linguistics]]
*[[psychology]]
*[[meteorology]] (especially [[global warming]])
*[[astronomy]] (especially [[black holes]], the [[Big Bang]] theory)

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-03-22T01:17:30Z

BHarlan: change of heart: someone will explain it to you. otherwise, how would you learn? Undo revision 643006 by BHarlan (Talk)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45x10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this, -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does '''not''' include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

::: The remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah. Sure. You, with only a mediocre grasp on the process of writing have a proof simple enough to put on wikipedia, yet it has evaded the planet's most brilliant scientists and mathematicians, essentially the brightest men in human history, for a century. I'd like to see this. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, I did some basic googling, and find that you've been going on about this for several years now, but have a pitifully poor grasp of relativistic theory. Well... welcome to Conservapedia, I guess. We're nothing if not openminded. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

== More regarding the criticism of LIGO ==

As a student of physics, I feel myself almost obliged to add something to the discussion regarding LIGO, particularly as I work for a Professor that is part of the LIGO collaboration and have actually attended scientific conferences where the subject is addressed (though to be fair my work with her specifically deals with another one of her collaborations, Borexino).

First, as mentioned in previous discussion, it is indeed true that it was understood that LIGO, like many scientific undertakings, would need to be refined and calibrated before reaching its design sensitivity. To claim the LIGO is a failure before it has reached its design sensitivity is just as ridiculous and ignorant as criticizing any other tool or piece of equipment for not functioning before it is properly calibrated. It isn't like the LIGO collaboration is trying to pull any fast ones on anyone by being secretive about this - just do a Google search for LIGO to bring up their web page, where they discuss the details of this matter.

Secondly, it is true that the "success" of the experiment cannot be known prior to its being conducted, but if it could, what would be the point in conducting the experiment in the first place? Experimentation is a necessary aspect of science because scientific investigation fundamentally deals with the discovery of knowledge not previously known to us, and because it is not known to us, even its ultimate usefulness cannot be known a priori. The rate of observed events under the initial design sensitivity is predicted to be very low, so it would not be very surprising if we did not observe anything until advanced LIGO debuts. Even still, there is a fundamental uncertainty in the rate of events that will be seen. Maxwell was once asked what the usefulness of electromagnetism could ever be, to which he replied "What good is a newborn baby?" I do not believe I need to highlight the usefulness of electromagnetism in the modern world.

Which brings me to my third point, which is the enormous significance LIGO holds in terms of scientific potential. If LIGO is successful, it will revolutionize modern day astronomy by providing a new method for detecting cosmological phenomena. Gravitational radiation would offer another method of "imaging" the heavens, independent of electromagnetic radiation. To say that LIGO would have limited scientific benefit would be a serious rebuke to the field of astronomy in general. Optical astronomy would be coupled with gravitational astronomy as a valuable check on astronomical results attained by optical methods alone. But of course, the fundamental uncertainty we have as to what the observed rate of events will be reflects the fact that we do not know with complete certainty what cosmological objects exist, hence the very reason that LIGO would be useful.

Even more revolutionary would be if LIGO failed to detect gravitational waves. If you only assume the existence of a gravitational field, and that disturbances in that field cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, then by the very definition of wavelike phenomena, you have gravitational waves. Gravitational radiation is a prediction of General Relativity, and as such, were it to be disproved, it would falsify a prediction of a scientific theory. To say that this is not valuable would be to suggest that, for example, Michelson's experiments in search of the aether were not valuable, whereas in reality they gave supporting evidence to the idea that there is indeed no aether. At the very least, the experiment should be able to place certain restrictions on the rate of observed events. If gravitational radiation were not found, and this represented a serious contradiction with the rate of events predicted, it would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS in terms of scientific relevance, and I cannot stress that enough. Something huge, somewhere in our understanding of the world, would have to be revised, be it the idea of the gravitational field, causality itself, etc. As a practicing scientist, I would almost hope that LIGO fails to see gravitational radiation, just because the scientific implications would be so unimaginably radical and weird, and force us to completely reexamine how we perceive the universe. But this subject could be argued until it reaches the realm of some very deep scientific philosophy - scientific theory is generally not viewed as being "completely true" or "completely wrong," but as a method of predicting physical phenomena, which eventually is replaced with a more accurate theory. Newtonian mechanics is not so much wrong, as it is not a good enough approximation in certain specific applications. If you want a metaphor, think about scientific progress as continuing to improve our Taylor expansion of the universe.

Though I suspect given the general tone of this article, somehow the death of GR would also please most of the contributors to this encyclopedia, as if General Relativity, a scientific theory, is somehow inherently a "liberal" idea. I'm sure that when Einstein formulated it, he envisioned it being used by Barack Obama to support a woman's legal right to terminate her pregnancy. Though, I hope for the sake of those contributors that General Relativity is either disproved, or is shown to be a "conservative" idea, because if it does adequately describe our universe, is a "liberal" idea, and God created the universe, then either God is a liberal, or he has a very weird sense of humo(u)r.

Just to get this nonsense out of the way now, I'm a registered independent. I vote, based on all of the relevant information I have been able to attain via what I believe to be credible sources, for whoever I honestly believe will be able to fulfill the duties of the office they seek, and I don't think anyone can ask any more of me than that. If any of this leads some of you to believe that I am incapable of discussing the theory of General Relativity, then I surely and sincerely have nothing but pity for you.

Talk:Theory of relativity

2009-03-22T01:09:23Z

BHarlan: long insulting liberal rant Undo revision 642998 by Kfratus (Talk)

== Great article ==

1) Superb avoidance of difficult science in a scientific article. Best not to be confusing.
2) Nice attention on Eddington rather than the theory itself.
3) Good mind reading regarding Eddington's dreams.
4) Nice work ignoring the facts about things that have been inventing using GR such as GPS

And rather than simply be sarcastic, I will work on a better article over the weekend. One that actually discusses the science.

== Special and general relativity ==

This article seems to combine the two. They are different ideas and need to be distinguished. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:21, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Separate articles would make more sense. I don't have time to do the necessary work right now, but if no one else does it I'm sure I'll get to it eventually. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:If someone will split the pages, I'll help flesh them out.--[[User:ZLewis|ZLewis]] 10:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Moral Relativism line needs to go. ==

I have never heard anyone advocating moral relativism use either of the theories of relativity to do it. Actually, the only people who I've ever heard that from are relativity deniers like Fred Hutchison. Not only does that show a grave misunderstanding of the scientific theory, but also a misunderstanding of the phrase "moral relativism". In any case, you can't draw moral implications from scientific theories. When someone says that Einstein's theory of relativity implies some kind of moral relativism, they're really saying "The geometric theory of gravity allows me to internalize my moral decisions".

That line is ridiculous and irrelevant, and needs to disappear.

:I don't like it ''at all'' in its present form, but the word "relativity" is thrown around casually ''quite a lot'' and there might be justification for a section with a title like "what relativity is not."

:E.g. [http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/06/relativity.html Scott Adams], author of the Dilbert comic strip, says "Einstein’s great insight was assuming reality was not fixed, and that everything was relative to the observer" and goes on to say "I have extended that thinking to people..."

::I think using Scott Adams as a reference or a jumping-off point for discussion really constitutes holding one's self to a dismally low standard. He's posted his own theories of physics to his blog a few times, freely admitting that he knows they're wrong and that he just takes pride in the fact that the layman can't successfully challenge them. In all honesty, moral relativism is a perfectly valid subject for an article, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics other than an unfortunate overlap of words and definitions in English. Putting this section in just makes the authors look like they're bristling for a fight. [[User:Willforpresident|Willforpresident]] 21:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:What follows is interesting if not very profound, but dragging Einstein into it is not helpful.

:It just goes to show the value of jargon. When scientists give something a simple name like "relativity," people assume they understand it and misapply it. I'm just thankful that people aren't very familiar with mathematics or we'd be hearding about crop circles in Galois fields. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:50, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::I like the "what relativity is not" idea. Might be worth pointing out that relativity in physics didn't start with SR; there is such a thing as Galilean relativity, after all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This line must go. It is not relevant to the article. Have a disambiguation page for relativity. The citation is completely incorrect. The website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html says nothing about general relativity influencing moral relativity. This article says 'Relativity has generated a huge following by advocates of moral relativism,' but the website http://www.moralrelativity.com/about1.html does not make any mention of this statement, therefore it is improperly cited. Citations are supposed to support claims, and this one does not. (Read the website for yourself). Also, just because relativity is a homophone in this case doesn't mean it belongs in an article of the (general) theory of relativity. ''Please make a disambiguation page'' because this is clearly in the wrong place.

I removed the moral relativity part from this article and placed it in a new article called [[Moral relativity]]. Relativity here is clearly just a homophone, and moral relativity is irrelevant to special or general relativity. To illustrate my point, see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity. Relativity in physics has a special meaning. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, moral relativism is a big reason for the political support of types of relativity. It's obviously relevant to this article, and the above criticism only reinforces the need to include a reference. We can debate how to say it, but censorship is not an option here. Go to Wikipedia for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, then that can go into the [[Moral relativity]] article, which now exists. There is no support for your claim. Neither is there a need for political support for a scientific theory. The way you describe it, moral relativity references this theory of relativity, not the other way around. The theory of relativity neither relies on moral relativity in any explanation of it or needs it to be mentioned for a complete treatment of the theory, and therefore it is inappropriate to add it here. I direct you again to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativity in order to clarify that relativity in this sense has specific meaning in the domain of physics, and arbritrary theories that share the word are not in this domain nor are related in any concrete way, simply being homophones. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Someone added more about the moral relativity bit, so I put it in the right place: in the article on [[Moral relativity]]. The section says, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views," which is about moral relavitity and how they use the theory of relativity, not how the the theory of relativity involves moral relativity. I challenge the writer again to find a work on the physics theory that metions moral relativity at all. Just because a page mentions the theory of relativity does not make it a legitimate part of the theory itself, and as such, does not belong in this article. If anything, the [[Moral relativity]] article should make a link to this article, not the other way around. I am not sure the agenda here, but it seems that someone would like to promote moral relativity by attaching it to unrelated articles. Please add your information to the correct article in the correct place. Again, here is the link: [[Moral relativity]]. Go crazy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ASchlafly, you added the line "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views" and gave a citation afterwards. If you read the page that you cite, you will see that the author merely uses Special Relativity to demonstrate how moral relativism works. He does not "seize" on the theory and does not use it to "legitimize" his view. Can you find a better source please? (or remove the sentence)

: I can't tell who or when this comment was made, because it lacks the signature (use the signature button above). But I will look for more sites about to support my statement, which should be easy to find. Frankly, I've never heard anyone doubt the statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you've been listening the wrong people. No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in [[Moral relativity]], not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the [[Moral relativity]] article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've received no response. Can I remove the paragraph now? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::By the way, I checked the history, and MatteeNeutra made the uncited statement above about needing a better source or removing the sentence. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== <math>e=mc^2</math> not "attributed" to Einstein. ==

<math>e=mc^2</math> isn't just "attributed" to Einstein. When someone says "attributed", they typically mean that someone is given credit for an idea somewhat apocryphally. Einstein obtained the relation in his Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, in which, from the Lorentz transformations, he obtained the relations:

<math>E = \sqrt{c^4m^2+p^2c^2}</math>
and then, as <math>p\to0</math>:

<math>E=mc^2</math>.

And these bizarre polemics are undermining what little credibility this encyclopedia has. Sneering at Einstein and glorifying the contributions of Ponicare makes all of the sense of arguing over whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus, particularly since there are very palpable differences between Einstein and Ponicare's treatments of the subjects. And, I see someone has removed the "there is no evidence for the general theory", but I'm sure it will be back by this afternoon. That's ever weirder -- how on earth can someone say that "there is no evidence" and then, in the same article, link to black holes?

I'm not going to go back to that article on [[Dirac Notation]] to fill up all of those links with articles until I'm sure one of the administrators isn't going to replace them with accusations of quantum mechanics being tantamount to the Kabbalah, or something equally stupid. (unsigned)

: It is a fact that Poincare published E=mc2 and most of the rest of special relativity before Einstein. Maybe you think that this is sneering or glorifying, but it is a fact, and there is no serious dispute about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: This is true, but what Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2. An experimental result showed that there was momentum when a body ejected EM radiation, but the mass was unaccounted for. Poincare described the mass of the EM as m=E/c2. Einstein derived this formula from more fundamental assumptions, the speed of light is absolute, etc. This is why his work is so famous. In fact, in all of science, nothing belongs to any one person, even though they may get credit, but are supposedly discovered. Also do not forget that Einstein also published General Relativity.
::Furthermore, while Poincare regarded it as superfluous, scientists of the day were still trying to work with the luminescent ether. Einstein's work proved this unnecessary.
::Again this is a lesson in science. We are always trying to compress and refine our science. Einstein, while he of course drew on other's work and surely knew of Poincare's m=E/c2 paper, his work was more refined and simpler, deriving many principles, Poincare's and new ones, from a few fundamental principles. Poincare published a paper about a month before Einstein with similar work, but in science, no one person makes a discover. Don't forget, Newton has his Hooke. But like Newton, it was Einstein's derivation and formalizations that worked better. (unsigned)

::: Yes, Poincare described was a specific case of E=mc2, but so did Einstein. Einstein did not foresee particle annihilation or nuclear energy. Poincare's description of the ether as superfluous is nearly identical to Einstein's.
::: How was Einstein's work on special relativity any more refined, simpler, or better working? I deny this. Poincare showed a better understanding of the theory than Einstein. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Don't ask me, ask Lorentz. http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm

::::: OK, I looked at your link. The first thing I saw was a claim that the 1919 eclipse proved the General Relativity. We now know that eclipse proved no such thing. So much for the credibility of that link.

::::: The link does show that Lorentz and Einstein were patting each other on the back. That's fine, but it suggests a lack of objectivity towards the odd man out, Poincare. This dispute cannot be resolved by self-interested party, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Can't get much more credible than a publication by Lorentz on Gutenberg, bud. It may be dated, but it is closer to the date of Einstein's work. As far as I see you, you have the burden to prove your claim as much as everyone else has to support the opposite claim. Where is your evidence of credible sources? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 18:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Old version ==

I was just looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_Relativity&oldid=15341 an old version of this page], and the absurdity of the "scientific" claims made, combined with the low quality of the writing and blatant inaccuracies, make the article, quite frankly, almost intellectually offensive. I realize that this has since been rectified, but if this is the quality that is to be expected of Conservapedia articles, then I do not blame those who dismiss it as a failed attempt. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: be specific in your statements if you expect a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I find the content reverted to in the above edit to be quite disturbing.

* The General Theory of Relativity does ''not'' reject Isaac Newton's "God-given" theory of gravitation, it simply provides an explanation for ''why'' it functions.

: that was obviously vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* It is most certainly ''not'' a problem that the General Theory of Relativity is based upon mathematics as opposed to empirical evidence, as seems to be insinuated by this version.

: mathematics is mathematics, and unless there is empirical evidence it is not science.

::Mathematics describes physics. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Albert Einstein's work ''did'' contribute to the development of the nuclear bomb. ''E=mc2'' describes the duality between matter and energy, the principle upon which the nuclear bomb, and all other nuclear devices, functions.

: nope. ''E=mc2'' is a statement of relativistic effect, not atomic power.

::Yes, but the mass lost in the nuclear reaction is converted to energy, which is the fundamental power of the weapon. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity." Sure, sure… nuclear power plants aren't useful at ''all'', are they? GPSs aren't useful ''at all'', are they?

: GPSs are useful, but they weren't built using General Relativity.
:: Without realativity describing gravitation redshift, the timing for the GPS satelite would be off by about 45 microseconds/day. Further reading on the matter at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I think Lorenzian relativity accounts for the GPS time dilation more precisely. But that isn't really my point. The GPS clocks are updated based on communications between the satellites and ground stations, not based on any theory. If you claim that GPS is built based on relativity, then you should be able to prove your case with an historical reference. No such proof exists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: That observation does not support the false claim that GPS is based on General Relativity. Other theories predict a dilation of time, and satellites are obviously synchronized based on communication, not theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::No, they have GR corrections built in. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Can you please cite an alternate theory that accounts for the time dilation experiecned by the GPS satelites along with the math that matches that of relativity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* "Most conservatives are skeptical since science is supposed to be about finding proof before a theory becomes a fact, not after." And ''where'' are the statistics that show this?

: Don't know who wrote that statement, but it's a correct statement of what science means.

::I was refering to the claim that "''most'' conservatives are skeptical since science…" (emphasis added) [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

* Gravitons are not predicted by general relativity; much to the contrary, the two have not been reconciled.

* It is currently believed that space does indeed have curvature, what is described as "negative" curvature, giving it a saddle-like shape overall, but curvature nonetheless.

The denial of demonstrated principles because they do not coincide with your worldview is not scientific, it's purely reactionary nonsense. I'm not impressed by Examples of Bias in Wikipedia citing Wikipedians taking issue with this as a "bias". [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: OK, fine, no one is trying to impress you. The Wikipedia entry was biased and demonstrably false, as explained in [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Oh, and I mean no offense to Aschlafly. Although I do not necessarily agree with all his views, I do not wish to disparage him, and I recognize his value as a contributor. I've reconciled with him on this issue, and want to make clear that I do not mean this comment as an attack. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: I just realized that I had somehow managed to fail to see that Aschlafly's edit was a simple revert to a previous version. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, and I don't retract the points with which I take issue, but Aschlafly is not responsible for the content, and I'm sorry for insinuating that he was. I've changed some of my comment to reflect the fact that the edit was simply a revert. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Merge with draft==

There is a draft for this article [[Theory of relativity/draft | here]]. Surely it's about time these two were merged together or at the very least decide which one is to be continued. I will continue to work on Theory of Relativity/draft as I feel it is a much clearer article. What does everyone else think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your draft article has some great stuff in it. Would you like to merge it into the main article now? However, please do not delete anything from the main article as part of the merge. Thanks and a good Easter to you.

: By the way, it appears that relativity is taught in college without using the concept of relativistic mass. But let's go with your relativistic mass as you wrote it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I'll take a shot at a merge now. Relativistic mass is quite important to the theory, as from it we can determine that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== This isn't Wikipedia ==

Teji, don't delete facts here that liberals don't like. This isn't Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Please read my explanation above. I don't think anyone likes unsourced information that is in the wrong topic. Please contribute to [[Moral relativity]]. I had to create that page while someone was adding information about it to the this topic. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, that link is about moral relativity, not special relativity. It belongs in [[Moral relativity]]. It is shocking that someone so interested in that topic didn't even think to make the article. In fact, I started that article! [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here is what I said above in case you didn't catch it: ''No reputable explanations of relativity mention moral relativity. Find a reputable one. Don't look for moral relativity explanations that include physics relativity, because that information belongs in Moral relativity, not here. You are researching the wrong topic. Repeat: look for information about the physical theory of relativity and see if you can find one that mentions moral relativity (not pages that talk about moral relativity and mention physical relativity). Furthermore, anyone can set up a web page and say whatever they want, so web pages are generally not a very good resource (unless it's the physics department website at MIT, for instance, because it has credibility in this field). You should find reputable scientific texts. And, please, stick the topic at hand: physical science topics needs physical science resources. There is ample room in the Moral relativity article to discuss. In fact, I'm surprised you aren't contributing more to that article (especially compared to how much you try add to in this article), since you seem to be very interested in the topic and are more knowledgable about it than physical relativity. Teji 13:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)''

:I find it interesting that when you cannot support your information you resort to name-calling and statements about wikipedia. Does this site want credible and accurate information or information with an agenda? Because if it is the latter, please make a statement to that effect in your policy pages, or would that make this website too credible and accurate? [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Teji, the statement does not claim that the theory of relativity supports moral relativity, but merely that supporters of moral relativity seized upon the theory of relativity to justify their views. "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views.[3] Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought." That statement is correct and should not be deleted. Read it, and reread it, and only comment further here if you can provide something that specifically refutes that statement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It is in the wrong place. The statement is clearly about [[Moral relativity]]. This statement is also correct: ''Jesus is God'', does it belong in this article? No. Here is another correct statement: ''morality is "what is the good" and ethics is "how do I practice it"'' from the moral relativity site. Does it belong in this artcle? Certainly not. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correctness is not enough. There also must be accuracy. Information about [[Moral relativity]] belongs in that article. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Maybe you should change the title to just "Relativity". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, how do I do that? We could also make a disambiguation page, but I don't know how to do that either. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::RSchlafly, you've missed the point. This article is about the Theory of Relativity as a scientific theory. As such, the article should not talk about Moral relativity which, apart from sharing using the same word, is absolutely nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity. I also, do not think that the sentence about Moral relativity should be put on this article. At the very most a link at the bottom of this article to Moral relativity, but you may as well link it to a page on forestry for all the relevance it has. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 05:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly, if you want to speak about moral relativists using special or general relativity as validation for their philosophy then it should be placed in an articlea bout moral relativism. It should '''not''' be here. Perhaps - perhaps - it could go in a section on the influence of the theory of relativity on 20th century culture.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was quote about Dicke removed? ==

I added this quote about the Francis Dicke's theory. Aschalfy, why did you remove it without any comments? It is from the same time magazine article that is already cited in this article. It clarifies why Dicke's theory is less professionally accepted! Please read the article yourself. It shows that Einstein's theory was closer than Dicke's.

''But the J.P.L. experimenters reduced the margin of error to 4% or less by locating the distant spacecraft within 100 ft. of their actual position. Thus, when they calculated that the signal to Mariner was slowed down by 204 millionths of a second on its round trip, '''they dealt the Brans-Dicke theory a sharp if not decisive blow'''. Their measurement was only 4 millionths of a second off the Einsteinian prediction, but 18 millionths of a second off the Brans-Dicke figure.'' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html

This is the same article that that is cited for the statement ''Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[7]''. The same article that shows why Robert Dicke's theory is not accepted among scientists. Dicke suffered not just because he criticized Einstein's theory, but also because his theory was not as accurate. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 14:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Time magazine is not an authority on whether Dicke's theory is better than Einstein's. Our [[rules]] are very clear not to cite journalists as authorities beyond their expertise. A scientific citation that I added shows that Dicke's theory is held in high regard to this day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The JPL isn't?

::: You've got to do better than that if you want a response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And a link from the JPL http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/70s/release_1970_0566.html --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That's an old self-serving press release about only one study. My footnote about relativity, citing a renaissance in Dicke's theory, is more recent and more comprehensive, and is based on a astrophysics encyclopedia. So your cite is not appropriate.

:::: And another article http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html about Dicke's critique of relativity and where it failed to produce a better answer. Tests included sodium lines in the sun, distance to the moon, and precession of Mercury. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the ''theory'' is held in high regard today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll take a look at this. I must say, however, that any article that starts out by calling its opponent a "crank" lacks credibility. But this cite is worth including to reflect the political bias against Dicke, resulting in his being denied the Nobel Prize.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::It actually specifically says that Dicke was not a "crank." [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Ah, yes. The author charitably concedes that Dicke himself was not a crank, just anyone who supported Dicke's view was.

::::: This article, which I'm reading now, is incredibly biased and one-sided. It declares the "General Theory" to be possibly the "greatest single achievement in physics ... of all time." And the author states his extremely biased view before telling us about testing results. Too bad this conflicts with the encyclopedia I cite in the content page. The value of this article is to show how intolerant supporters of the "General Theory" are of any criticism, including that by Dicke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If Dicke's results were as good or better than General Relativity, then there would be no issue at all. It also addresses reference #8 about not getting a Nobel Prize - that is because the prize is for discovery, not interpretations. He wasn't a theoretician and thus didn't have other theories and discoveries. The individual Dicke is held with high regard in the community - his theory is not (though it is respected in developing the framework for relativistic events). I am curious to see a citation that shows his theory as being respected for the results it gives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Also the article you misuse by taking the whole renaissance statement out of says this in the same paragraph before your quote!
::::::::''Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time.''
::::::: [[User:Teji|Teji]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Muon experiment from another point of view ==

From the point of view of the muon in the experiment mentioned, time is not slowed down, but rather distance is compressed. So instead of dilating time 5x across 10km of travel at relativistic speed, the muon saw that space had compressed from 10km to 2km (also 5x) and it was still traveling that distance. Thus, the same result - just different perspectives. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ref: Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was never given a Nobel Prize. ==

I would like to remove this reference. Nobel Prizes are given for discoveries and advancements. Dicke was an experimentalist - not a theorist. He didn't make discoveries or advancements but rather proved or disproved what the theorists came up with. As such, the work he did was not something that was noted by those nominating for the Nobel Prize. Likewise, you won't see a book critic get a Nobel Prize for literature, no matter how good of a critic he or she may be. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Given that there has been no comment on this in opposition, I am removing the reference until someone can dispute the question of if any of Dicke's work was the type for which a Nobel Prize would have been given. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: I'm reverting your change. Experimentalists win the Nobel Prize all the time. A prize was given to someone else for work Dicke was doing. In fact, experimentalists probably win the prize more than theorists. The deletion of that sentence is for liberal purposes, and we don't allow that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Government support of relativity research problems ==

The section on government support of relativity research needs a big re-write, but it needs to be clear what is intended first. There are several specific complaints which seem to have been jumbled together:
#LIGO was a failure, and the money could have been spent elsewhere.
#Too much money is spent on string theory and similar theories.
#The government does not support research into (unspecified) alternate theories.

#This is just liberal crybabying. Not all experiments work, and you can't know ahead of time which ones will. Most such complaints about too much money being spent on some experimental program are based on the idea of government as sugar-daddy, and whining when sugar-daddy likes someone else best.
#This complaint is more legitimate, as there are serious claims that string theory is not a scientific theory. However, this complaint doesn't belong in this article, because string theory is not relativity; it's an attempt to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. String theory would replace general relativity, if a coherent theory were formulated, and then tested.
#This complaint seems ridiculous, as the government has funded plenty of tests to verify general relativity; any experimenter who wants to test an alternate theory can devise a test which would produce one result if GR is correct, and another if the alternate theory is true, and ask for funding for a test to verify GR.

On the other hand, perhaps the section could be deleted altogether. [[User:Ultramontanist|Ultramontanist]] 02:02, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== Relativistic mass ==
This paragraph is nonsense:
: There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. But mass is not a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is unacceptable.

The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is. Some don't like the term "relatvistic mass", but for other reasons.

This is also nonsense:
:In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
::1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.
:: 2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
:: 3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

This is not a restatement. Relativity says masses cannot for faster than light. Probably not information either, but that is another principle. Parts 2 and 3 are confusing and misleading, at best. Relativity teaches that there are no inertial frames in the universe. The laws of physics apply throughout the universe. They apply whether there is acceleration or not. But special relativity has more to do with inertial frames.

I suggest getting rid of these "layman's terms". They aren't. They don't clarify anything for anybody. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== GPS edit ==

Bayes, your claim that GPS is based on the Theory of General Relativity is not correct. GPS synchronization can be done directly, and has never relied on the theory. Your edits should be reverted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies. I didn't mean to edit recklessly; I thought I was correcting a typo. In fact, the [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html source cited by that sentence] ''before'' I made my edit (and many other sources as well) indicate that relativistic corrections are, in fact, taken into account by GPS receivers. Clocks on the satellites run at different rates than those on the ground due to the fact that they are at a higher altitude, where gravity is weaker; hence the need for a correction for gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity. Yes, that means that clocks in Denver tick slightly faster than clocks in New York. I would be happy to look at any sources you can provide that show how GPS keeps accurate time without those corrections.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your citation is to a silly, unsupported and off-hand remark by a professor of astronomy. GPS was built by engineers in the 1970s, who would not have even attempted to calculated the time dilation using relativity. There would be no reason to rely on relativity, since the clocks can be and were synchronized more directly, more simply and more accurately by communicating with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Let me reiterate that the citation was there before I made my edit. The previous version denied that relativistic corrections are necessary, and then cited a source to the contrary. Your recent edit makes a similar claim, but cites a source that doesn't delve deeply into technical aspects of how GPS actually works, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim. 
:::2. You can dismiss the citation in question if you like, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of experts disagree; consider [http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm 1] [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 2] [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3], which I doubt would be considered "silly, unsupported and off-hand remark[s]." 
:::3. GPS designers in the 1970s certainly knew about relativistic effects. Here's an exerpt from [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf 3]: 
:::[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%. 
:::4. Yes, communication with the satellites is possible. That doesn't change the fact that satellite clocks run at different rates than ground-based clocks, which would result in huge errors if the satellite clock frequencies weren't compensated for time dilation effects.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:17, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Criticism of LIGO ==

The criticism of LIGO under the heading "Government funding..." should be viewed in context. The observatories are not yet operating at their maximum level of precision. The usual procedure when building large projects like this is to make sure they work at more imprecise levels, and then "tune" them closer and closer to their limits. It isn't surprising that LIGO has not yet detected gravitational waves, and the consensus is that such waves will be detected in the future. The [http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html cource cited] for that criticism even mentions that physicists are "confident" that LIGO will be successful. After all, the NSF doesn't shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money on a coin flip; they were/are convinced that getting results is a slam dunk.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hope springs eternal. I'm afraid you sound like an oil-well driller (wildcatter) who, after encountering one dry well after another in a region, says "just spend a little more money and drill again!"

: LIGO has been a disappointment so far, and there is no sign of success right around the corner. At some point accountability is in order, even if more money is to be spent searching gravity waves. Realize that this search has been ongoing for 100 years, without any detection. How many more years are necessary?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::While I fully agree that accountability for all major budget items is in order at some point, I don't think the oil-driller analogy is valid in this context. LIGO is still far from its designed sensitivity, as mentioned [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJM-4B5R97X-F&_user=1010281&_handle=V-WA-A-W-VB-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAVUWVWVAB-AABDYWBWAB-CEYDYDUEB-VB-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F21%2F2004&_rdoc=15&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235314%232004%23994829998%23476198%21&_cdi=5314&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=6a930932559a96137a8b6aafdb2d9372 here]. Plans are already underway to do go beyond merely detecting gravitational waves to doing astrophysics with them. Furthermore, detection of gravitational waves requires extreme sensitivity that can only be achieved with modern technology. Serious efforts to detect them didn't begin until the 1960s, when Joseph Weber built his bar detectors, and even then the scientific consensus was that his detectors weren't sensitive enough. Some scientific advances just have to wait for technology to allow their discovery. Tell you what, if LIGO is considered a failure in 10 years, I owe you a Coke.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Other issues ==
There are some other aspects of this article that I would like to consider adding to or changing.
*A fair amount of text is dedicated to Eddington's findings and not many other astronomical observations. Eddington published his results in 1919; obviously, since then, there have been many others who have improved on his observations.
*The "Ostensible Paradoxes" section should be heavily altered or removed; there aren't any paradoxes listed there. First, the SR postulates don't offer any opinion on whether physical constants have had the same value throughout the history of the universe; they state that all inertial observers get the same answer when they measure the speed of light. Second, there are several ways to measure wave velocity; some of the most common are [[group velocity]] and [[phase velocity]]. Both types of velocities can exceed the speed of light (''c'') without violating special relativity. However, the energy velocity and information velocity do not exceed ''c'', also in accordance with SR. There is nothing mysterious or sinister going on here; these concepts are addressed or at least mentioned in many undergraduate courses. Third, the universal constant ''c'' is the speed of light ''in vacuum''; the speed of light ''in materials'' is less than than ''c'' since the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of materials are different than those of vacuum. That means that matter can travel faster than light ''in a material'' without violating SR; try Googling [[Cerenkov radiation]].--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm concerned about the use of some citations, which seem to be misrepresented in order to discredit relativity. For instance:
:*The Economist article cited does not attack relativity; it's a discussion of how GR is being tested to its limits, like any other theory. If any improved theory of gravity is found, GR is likely to be a useful subset of it, in the same way that Newtonian gravity is a useful subset of GR. And anyway, I thought non-scientific sources [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_relativity&diff=prev&oldid=95688 weren't supposed to used] in these situations.
:*The new cite for the statement ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views'' is an opinion piece about how moral relativists hijacked scientific relativity for their own purposes. The cite doesn't make that claim, and it doesn't show any data to support it. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if any such correlation existed. Even IF that kind of correlation existed, it doesn't belong in a scientific article.

:The overall tone of the article seems to try to convince the reader to be skeptical of relativity. It appears to me that such skepticism is ideologically motivated, e.g., ''Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries...'', ''The Democratic Congress insisted on the $250 million LIGO project...'', ''There is a correlation between enthusiasm for the theory of relativity and political views''. I don't fully understand the motivation, but it bears repeating that good science (of which relativity is a part) is independent of ideology.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:54, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: You're not the first to deny a [[liberal bias]] in science. But surely you would agree that the following areas of science, and perhaps nearly of all science, are susceptible to political bias:

**[[global warming]]
**nuclear energy
**the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
**claims of extraterritorial life
**demands for government funding of science

::--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree that deciding what science to fund, implementation of policies pertaining to scientific findings, or practical use of scientific results (like nuclear weapons), and perhaps some other issues not mentioned are or can be politicized. But I stand by my basic point: if you get a liberal to measure acceleration due to gravity on Earth's surface, and then get a conservative to do the same thing, they'll both get 9.8 m/s^2. Similarly, relativity has been around long enough, has useful applications, and is so successful in predicting experimental outcomes that it should not be subject to the same treatment as the more controversial topics you mention.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: You apparently don't concede the liberal bias in the majority of my examples above, such as global warming and SDI. When I worked as engineer at a research facility in the 1980s, we had an IBM scientist with impeccable credentials give a presentation claim that SDI was impossible, dangerous, and bad politics. It's silly to pretend that his claim of impossibility of SDI was unrelated to politics. Likewise, it's silly to pretend there is no political bias in global warming theories. But if we can't agree on that, then there is little point in discussing this further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Did you read the first sentence of my post above? Global warming is an example of tough policy decisions that could be implemented based on scientific findings. Surely both conservatives and liberals agree with the basic finding that the earth is warming. Similarly, the political debate over SDI was about the USE of science and technology, not the FINDINGS of science and technology. Sure, scientists can have opinions about what to do with their findings, but presumably the experimental results are valid across political lines. In any case, this is an aside; my specific concerns with the article, as addressed on this page, still stand. I assume by your willingness to exit the conversation that you don't have any problems with me addressing them?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 18:48, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your first sentence omitted any reference to global warming. Global warming is a liberal scientific theory about if and why the earth is warming. Yes, there are political biases in many scientific theories. If you can't accept that, then I urge you to become more open-minded first before trying to pretend that something is immune from politics.

:::: I have no objections to factual edits of this article that add information. I do object to pushing a liberal point of view by deleting factual information. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sounds good. However, the fact that GPS satellite clocks have built-in corrections for relativistic effects is something I inserted previously, and it was reverted. I hope you understand that I brought up these issues in an effort to accurately represent the science, and not because of some agenda. As I've said, I don't think special and general relativity are associated with political controversy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bayes, you continue to insist on a falsehood, and I attribute that to [[liberal]] distortions in what you've read elsewhere. Please recognize that politics does distort science. '''GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity.'''--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: See my post above, where I have cited several sources that assert the contrary. On the other hand, you have yet to provide any evidence of how GPS can work without taking such corrections into account. Your source for that claim does not address timing issues with regard to GPS. I have to say that I'm increasingly baffled by your continued denial of this verifiable fact. How would a vast liberal conspiracy gain from hiding how clocks work?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Bayes, you're talking to a former engineer. GPS was built by engineers, not by theoretical physicists. GPS never used the theory of relativity. If you continue to dispute that (likely due to [[liberal]] bias), then give me your very best cite for your claim that GPS used the theory of relativity and I'll look at it. Otherwise, drop it and move on to a different issue. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:41, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

GPS and relativity links:
* http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
* http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
* http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm (actual equations)
* http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
* http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~kpgokeef/pubs/ENGO625relativity.pdf (slides from an engineering lecture - see pages 23-30 for listing of relativistic effects GPS accounts for - note conclusions on page 31.)
--[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:53, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you're not listening. Give me your best cite for the claim that GPS *uses* the theory of relativity. Pick out your best, that's all I'm going to waste time on, since the answer is obvious to any engineer: GPS never used the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, I should probably reference http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf "GPS And Relativity: An Engineering Overview".
:: The first page introduction finishes with "In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are, and how and what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics."
:: Lorentz Contraction is covered on page 2, Gravitational redshift on page 3, and the acceleration of the satellite on page 4.
::: "Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45x10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this, -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec."
:: Does that help answer the question? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 22:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: The very first sentences of this paper prove my point (emphasis added):

:::: The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does '''not''' include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.

::: The remainder of the paper is theoretical speculation about how a future GPS system might use relativity. There is disagreement about how relativity might be used, as reflected by comments in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The remainder of the paper is about improvements to the GPS system. The paper was published in '97. In 2001, the system was updated. With Block II GPS satelites, OCS was rewritten so that it doesn't require constant updates from ground stations to reset the clocks http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsreport/1994/msg00146.html (example of clock reset for relativity prior to 2001). Instead, now, accounting for relativity constantly the GPS satellites are able to offer much more accurate positioning (this was required, as mentioned by the paper I previously linked, the 6 meter accuracy - it is now required by the 2001 performance standard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/2001SPSPerformanceStandardFINAL.pdf (page 20 of the document, section 3.4) . If you are willing to reset the clock periodically and accept errors between clock resets - then you can discount relativity. If you want high accuracy all the time, you must take relativity into account between synchronizations. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: The remainder of the paper is about '''proposed''' improvements to the GPS system. There is nothing indicating that those proposals were ever implemented. So that paper strikes out as support for the claim that GPS relies on relativity.

::::: Now you're pointing me to a new paper. I'll look at it in the morning but, as I said, pick your best one. If this paper strikes out also then I'm unlikely to keep looking at more and more papers to explain why each one fails to support the claim. Please provide your very best cite, as I requested before. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:07, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::How about [http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf this one], written by [http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html Neil Ashby] for [http://www.physicstoday.org/ Physics Today], a major publication of the AIP. Again, I quote from a portion, although the entire paper is about the issue in question:

:::::"[B]efore the first GPS satellite was launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better than 1%."

::::You've now been presented with many sources from Rutm and I supporting GR implementation in GPS, and you have yet to produce one source that says that GPS works on only classical principles. Furthermore, I question your motivation in demanding one "best" source, since I anticipate that you will attempt to attack the "best source," perhaps by invoking "liberal bias" (as if it existed in this case--either the clocks run at different frequencies or they don't), ignoring the vast consensus, and proclaim "victory."--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 10:56, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, I think I now (finally!) understand what's going on. I think we have a misunderstanding here; we're talking about two different kinds of corrections. The paper supplied by Rutm (and quoted in the current article) is discussing relativistic corrections to the frequency of signals measured by the receivers. That paper is from the early 1990s, and at that time no relativistic corrections were performed for those signals (though corrections might be taken into account now). Throughout this discussion, I have been referring to the fact that clocks on GPS space vehicles have ALWAYS had built-in frequency offsets to account for the relativistic effects on moving clocks and clocks in gravitational potentials. It's a question of corrections made to the '''communications''' between GPS components and the '''on-board clocks''' of the satellites; the former are not as important, while the latter are very important. Any problems with inserting this nuance into the article?--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 19:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Andy, that GPS quote is extremely misleading. It implies that the relativistic effects are too small to be significant. But the rest of the paragraph explains that relativistic corrections are necessary to meet the accuracy requirements of most users. The article is incorrect when it states, "Predictions of relativity have not historically been used to make the Global Positioning System (GPS) function properly." Relativity has in fact been used, and programmed into satellites and receivers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's simply not true. GPS adjustments have been based on observation, not theoretical prediction. Effects predicted by relativity are offsetting to each other and the experts could not even agree in which direction the small net effect would be.
:This is a matter of historical fact and it's astonishing that the demands to rewrite history about this are so persistent. The quote confirms the obvious: GPS adjustments are based on observation, not theoretical prediction.
:For those who claim to have such a thorough understanding of GPS here, how about answering the question below: does Newtonian mechanics predict any divergence in the clocks from the satellite compared to ground? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, the fact is that the GPS satellites have operated both with and without the relativistic corrections. The cited articles confirm that. You are completely wrong to say that relativistic corrections have not been used.
:: The relativistic corrections partially offset each other, but not entirely, and they are big enough to affect accuracy in a typical consumer GPS unit. It is also false to say that there is disagreement among physicists on the point.
:: If you were right, then find an article that supports what you say. That paragraph you quote ends with "large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics." Include that, and give the date on the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:09, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The article first states the obvious: GPS is not designed using the theory of relativity. Then the article discusses an ongoing and unresolved dispute about exactly what the theory of relativity does predict for the numerous factors involved in the GPS system, and makes its own unverified claims. Relativity predicts time differences going in both directions, and there are issues about what the inertial frame should be. One article cited earlier, which I will try to find and reinsert, states that Lorentzian (not Special) Relativity generally matches observations best.

:GPS was built by engineers and there is no reason for them to rely on the theory of relativity. It is far simpler and more reliable simply to observe the time differences. Engineers don't study the theory of relativity, and if you think a physicist well-versed in the theory of relativity provided essential predictions for the GPS engineers, then who was he? Give us his name and he we can simply ask him. Was he nominated for a Nobel prize? Surely he would have at least published a paper about his work. Where is it????

:And where is the answer to the question as to whether Newtonian mechanics predicts time difference in the GPS system also? After all, if someone is going to claim that GPS confirms the superiority of relativity to Newtonian mechanics, then surely he must first make a statement about whether Newtonian mechanics predicts a time difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: What you say is just not true. GPS was designed with an understanding of the magnitude of the relativistic effects. The effects are well-understood, and no one was nominated for a Nobel prize for predicting the effects. Yes, there were engineers who didn't study relativity and didn't think that relativistic effects would be significant. They have been proven wrong. There are no unresolved disputes. You have been given several references that tell the story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:41, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

::: To sum:

*** no physicists have been identified who supposedly incorporated relativity into the GPS design
*** no papers exist describing how relativity *was* (not "might be") used in GPS
*** references that have been provided describe disagreements among physicists about the relativistic predictions for GPS
*** those claiming that GPS confirms relativity compared to Newtonian mechanics don't know whether Newtonian mechanics also predicts time differences, which renders the comparison pointless.

::: I realize that historical revisionism is common in many areas, but I would hope that science would adhere to a higher standard. Sometimes, unfortunately, science seems be even more vulnerable to revisionism. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:04, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: I will respond to this post below, under "Question about GPS"--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 13:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: As Bayes explains, the papers do say that relativity was used in GPS. Just what is the disagreement among physicists? I didn't see any in your references. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, none of the papers state that a physicist or group of physicists provided the complex relativistic predictions and that those predictions were incorporated into a particular GPS system. Engineers don't study relativity, and if physicists provided these predictions to a GPS system then there would be (a) names of physicists, (b) dates of incorporation, and (c) adjustments based on results. None of this happened.

::::: The claim that relativistic predictions were actually used in an actual GPS system wouldn't last 5 minutes on a witness stand at trial. It's pure fiction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity (moved from [[User talk:Aschlafly]]) ==

I found it offensive that you labelled my edit a "liberal edit". I was not aware of the Corpuscular Theory of Light, and therefore I did not know what "Newton's theory" in that sentence was referring to. Since there was no link (as there is now) to a page which shows Einstein's formula being two times more than his previous one, which was stated to be same as Newton's, I changed the sentence to the best of my knowledge - that light was viewed as a wave through ether at Newton's time, and therefore his theory of gravity does not apply.

How my mistake is a "liberal edit" is beyond me.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 09:47, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: Please accept my apologies. By way of explanation, not as justification, liberals love relativism and their spin on the theory of relativity, and exaggerate everything associated with it. Claiming that relativity predicts the bending of light while Newton did not is one of those exaggerations. A simple search on the internet before deleting something here is always advisable, and that simple search reveals how Newton's theory predicts the bending of light too (though not by as much). I think this Newtonian prediction is in high school physics problem books, so it is not obscure.

: Regardless, thanks for your efforts and I look forward to more additions by you here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll search the internet before making changes next time. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:04, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Ashlafly, I am concerned about the overall tone of the [[relativity]] article. Some statements suggest the presence of an anti-relativity agenda. Am I correct in guessing that this stance is due to a perceived link between moral relativism, the Democratic party, and the scientific concept of relativity? If so, I'd like to point out that while scientific funding by the government is certainly a political issue, actual scientific research is a separate issue and is independent of political leanings. The outcome of a proper experiment does not depend on whether the scientists conducting it are conservative or liberal. You are indeed justified if you are objecting to overzealous extrapolations based on scientific findings (such as moral relativism being based on scientific relativity), but such extrapolations have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific findings themselves. IMHO, encyclopedic articles on the scientific concept of relativity should stick to the science and not go into philosophy or politics. Furthermore, criticism of concepts such as moral relativism should be concerned with the merits (or lack thereof) of the concepts themselves, not on sound science that has nothing to do with it. Attempts to discredit relativity because of perceived links to philosohical or political positions that one disagrees with are not scientific, and fly in the face of undeniable experimental verification, basic facts (like how GPS satellite clocks function) and essentially universal acceptance of at least the basic principles. If you would like to incorporate some of the material on the current relativity page into a separate article, such as [[Historical views of relativity]], a personal essay, or something similar, then I would be all for it. I have not yet edited the relativity article heavily, but please see [[Talk:Theory of relativity]] for some of my specific conerns.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 17:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: I have already responded to this above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== Question about GPS ==
Does Newtonian mechanics predict that clocks on GPS satellites will diverge from clocks on earth? That is not an easy question to answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:As far as I'm aware, no. It's relativity that predicts that there will be a divergence in time, for reasons already discussed. However, I want to throw in: both of you aruging about whether GPS satellites use relativity are correct in certain ways. Andy, you're correct that there is no actual use of relativity on the circuits on board the satellite. For those arguing that relativity is used, you're correct too; based on predictions from both general and special relativity, the clocks on the satellites are fine tuned with an offset to minimize the nano-second order deviations from clocks on the ground. Then, for practical purposes, newtonian based approximations are acceptable accuracy-wise. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 14:08, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

: Mr. Schlafly, I apologize for not responding more quickly. Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the observed divergence in clock rates. Classically, inertial reference frames are related by [[Galilean transformations]]:

:: x' = x + vt
:: t' = t

:: where x and x' are positions in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: t and t' are times in the rest and moving frame, respectively
:: v is the velocity of the moving frame relative to the rest frame. Note that frame labels like "rest" and "moving" are arbitrary.

: According to those transformations, time in all inertial frames is the same (t' = t), and therefore no time dilation is predicted. However, the Lorentz transformations that relate inertial frames according to special relativity DO predict time dilation. So that would allow for corrections based on the relative speeds of the satellites. However, you could reconcile the time difference using classical mechanics IF you assert that the speed of light in the moving frame is different from the speed of light in the rest frame; that would essentially mean that the satellites are measuring a different light speed than the earth is. Such assertions would conflict with experimental evidence.

: Another, more significant time dilation effect is due to gravitational time dilation, predicted by general relativity, which is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. Newtonian gravity incorporates an "action at a distance" principle and does not incorporate spacetime curvature, and therefore predicts no gravitational time dilation.

: Also, your statement that no sources have been provided showing that corrections for relativistic effects were historically incorporated is incorrect, as I have twice quoted from a Physics Today article (see above) showing that devices allowing for such corrections to clock frequencies were used when the satellites were first launched. I'm still convinced we have a misunderstanding; the satellite clock frequencies have used and do need relativistic corrections, but once those corrections are implemented, Newtonian physics works fine for communication and position calculations (although some sources seem to indicate that may not be true for fast-moving objects, like jets and so forth). However, you have successfully convinced me that there is something of a political element in some areas of science :)--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:40, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Bayes, it's wrong to assert that Newtonian mechanics does not predict time differences in GPS clocks. You can't build a clock that would be uneffected by acceleration under Newtonian mechanics.
:: Let's be frank for a moment. It's absurd to insist that an experiment proves theory A is superior to theory B when there is no understanding of what theory B even says about the experiment. Theory A may indeed be better than theory B, but superiority is not demonstrated by that experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You got a physics paper saying that relativity explains the GPS clock differences to within 1%. There is no Newtonian explanation for the differences. Just give the fact, and let the reader decide which theory is superior. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:48, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: The paper does not demonstrate that relativity predictions were incorporated into GPS. No paper demonstrates that.
:::: A few (not many) papers claim that observed GPS clock differences can be explained by relativity. That is a very different claim, and requires examining carefully the assumptions made in the calculations to justify a claim that the theory matches an observed result. It also requires comparing the calculations to Newtonian calculations, which the papers utterly fail to do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, of course those papers compare to Newtonian calculations. That is why they are called "GPS clock differences". They are the differences between the relativistic and Newtonian calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No they don't. Those few papers attempting to match relativity theory with GPS clock results all implicitly assume that the effects on the accelerated clocks from Newtonian mechanics are zero. That is likely wrong. And that explains why there are so few papers and so few physicists who claim personally to have confirmed GPS results with relativity theory.

:::::: If GPS results really did confirm relativity theory, then this would be in textbooks and classroom assignments. It isn't. Only a few obscure physicists even make the claim asserted here, and because they implicitly make the assumption that Newtonian effects are zero, their claims are not credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: Yes, of course the Newtonian effect on time are zero. What are you suggesting -- that some unknown Newtonian effect might predict a GPS clock difference that just happens to match the relativistic calculation? The fact remains that the GPS clock differences are predicted by relativity, and not by any other theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: There is a Newtonian effect on the clocks. Yet this was not even addressed by a few obscure physicists who claim to derive, using relativity while disagreeing with other experts, the exact same result as the observed GPS time differences. This omission hardly inspires confidence in their unverified work. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: It wasn't addressed because it doesn't exist. Do you have any reliable source that says that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:13, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: And if there is no such paper, then the relativity claim about GPS must be true??? No, the relativity claim about GPS needs to stand on far better logic than that.

::::::::: In fact, the few papers claiming relatitivy is confirmed by GPS, written by obscure physicists, overlooked the Newtonian effects on the clocks. If you think you can build a clock immune from Newtonian effects, then patent it immediately. Can't be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

<----

Please identify the calculations that predict a difference in time. Bayes has already shown that time in all inertial reference frames is equal and identified how he derived this statement, so there's obviously something we're missing. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, if there is no paper saying that a Newtonian effect can explain the observed GPS time differences, then it is correct to say that relativity provides the only known explanation for those differences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: No, we shouldn't accept the equivalent of "relative proof." Just because a flawed proof or claim is better than other flawed proofs or claims does not mean it is acceptable. Would any mathematician embrace a flawed proof because it is better than other flawed attempts to prove the same theorem? I don't think so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:: If you don't want to call it a "relative proof", that's fine with me. I am just correcting errors. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::: Here are the facts:

:::*GPS satellite clocks have mechanisms to correct for frequency offsets caused by time dilation. I don't see how this can be disputed, unless you want to stubbornly deny that such devices exist, in which case you can claim that cars don't have engines.

:::: It hasn't been proven that the frequency offsets are due to "time dilation." Instead, you assume what you claim to prove. Your logic is circular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Newtonian mechanics does not predict ANY time dilation because it regards time as absolute, even in accelerating frames. Again, I don't see how this can be reasonably disputed, outside of winning a Nobel Prize. There are no reputable sources that predict Newtonian time dilation because there is no Newtonian time dilation.

:::: No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation. This is a strawman argument. What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects the operation of clocks in accelerating frames.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*Relativity does predict time dilation. All reputable physicists (not just a few obscure ones) can attest to that.

:::: OK, this is true, but purely theoretical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::*The predictions of relativity are in good agreement with the frequency offsets on GPS satellite clocks. Several papers on the topic have been cited on this page.

:::: A few papers by obscure physicists have made this claim, but these papers raise questions like disagreements among relativists and a failure to address Newtonian effects on the clocks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::If you want to flat-out deny the above, then I guess I shouldn't waste my time trying to improve the article. I'll also point out that some significant creationist ideas depend on relativity to explain the starlight problem (God creating the Earth inside a massive gravitational field), so it's not an amoral atheist conspiracy.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 14:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Relativists love to exaggerate relativity. Earlier, someone here claimed (based on what he had been taught by relativists) that only relativity predicts the bending of light from gravity. Wrong again. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---

You state, ''"No one said that Newtonian mechanics does predict time dilation...What is true is that Newtonian mechanics effects [sic] the operation of clocks in accelerating frames."'' Those sentences are contradictory. Newtonian mechanics does NOT predict any difference in the operation of clocks. Furthermore, what do the frequency offsets do if they don't compensate for time dilation?? Are they decorative?? Clock frequencies have to be adjusted ''because the clocks run at different rates''. And whatever extrapolations "relativists" come up with have nothing to do with the science.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's correct. If you wanted to make an anti-relativity statement, I think that here is the most that you could say correctly is this:

* GPS does not prove relativity, in the sense that no experiment ever proves a theory. There is always the possibility that someone will come along later with a better explanation.

* Being able to calculate the relativistic corrections is not truly essential to making GPS work. Nowadays the satellite clocks are synchronized so frequently that predicting the clock drift is not necessary. If relativity were never discovered, then the satellite corrections could be made without anyone realizing that the system was just adding relativistic corrections. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:02, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::RSchlafly, although I disagree with your decision to remove some of the discussion here, I agree with your position. My only issue is that your second bullet still leaves open the question of why the clocks drift, or why they need to be synchronized often, and implies that we don't have a good explanation. However, we do have a pretty good explanation--relativity can predict such discrepancy to high precision. If GPS is mentioned in the article, I would prefer that we insert language similar to "Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth. Currently, relativity provides the best explanation for such adjustments (insert refs)" Does that sound any better? I'm open other suggestions.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 16:28, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know what you mean about my "decision to remove some of the discussion here". What discussion did I remove? I did want to remove the 1996 quote because it is out-of-date and out-of-context. Anyway, I inserted your proposed 2 sentences. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:01, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_relativity&diff=259155&oldid=259114 this edit]. Anyway, not that big of a deal now; I appreciate your attempt to fix the article, although those attempts have now been effectively neutered [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259513] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=next&oldid=259528]. The GPS section has now grown so large that it may now detract from learning about relativity. I wonder if it is not better placed on the GPS article rather than this one.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry, I apparently accidentally lost some comments. I just tried to restore them. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:53, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Skepticism==
Edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&diff=259513&oldid=259511 this one] made in the last few days are again consistent with the overall skepticism for relativity present in the article. The physicist in question is indeed involved in research into alternatives to general relativity. He appears to support [http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2001-Spring/announce.alley.html Yilmaz theory], which is not especially well-regarded by the scientific community [http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/ASGRG/ACGRG1/fackerell.html] [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504050]. Even if it turned out to be an improvement on GR, it would still predict time dilation and other relativity-esque things, so I don't see what would be gained by denying all of GR but then embracing Yilmaz theory. GR is constantly being tested because a.) it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and b.) it is the current gold standard for theories of gravitation, and the limits of current gold standards are where new physics lie. Physicists I know who are doing research on alternative theories of gravitation teach classes on relativity, and emphasize its success; they aren't "skeptics" who want to throw it in the trash. Improvements on GR are likely to include GR as an approximation, as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to GR.

Relativity is the current best idea we have to explain a lot of things and works to within experimental uncertainty for all tests of it performed so far. This article should reflect that success instead of embarking on a misguided ideological quest to discredit it in favor of Newtonian mechanics, which is known to have limits. And what I've said applies to GR; SR is even more established. Aschlafly, your problem with relativity appears to be that it is called "relativity" which you believe allows it to somehow be associated with moral relativism. Would your objections still hold if it were named "Reference Frame Theory"? Please remove the skeptical claims, as their inclusion implies willful ignorance to anyone who visits this page.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 20:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

: Bayes, we're factual on this site. Exaggerations about the theory of relativity or anything else are not allowed here. For example, one editor here claimed that relativity predicts the bending of light but that Newtonian mechanics does not. That is false. Some of the claims here about GPS using relativity have also been false. This isn't allowed in a credible encyclopedia. Go to Wikipedia if you want to stretch or distort the truth to suit your personal views about what the facts should be. Here we state what the facts are.

: Similarly, we don't delete or censor factual scientific information here. You recently deleted factual information without justification, and your deletion has been reverted. Please abide by our [[rules]]. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't get the point of your edits. Under Ostensible Paradoxes, you have a 2001 article that says "If confirmed, the finding could mean ...". That was 6 years ago. Was it confirmed, or not? The following results are somewhat interesting, but obscure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:14, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== Nasa on spacecraft and relativity ==

Three of the items found with a quick search:
* Cassini refines measurements of general relativity with its trip around the sun [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm]
* Voyager 1's slingshot around Saturn showed frequency shifts in agreement with relativity [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html]
* Gravity Probe B is a satellite launched and demonstrates frame dragging and geodetic warping of space [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html][http://einstein.stanford.edu/]
Given these examples, I believe the passage recently added:
:In addition to GPS discussed above, NASA has launched numerous space probes and missions, but none of them have ever used the theory of relativity in their timing mechanisms even though they experience much weaker gravitational fields in space.
is inappropriate and misleading. Even if the space craft where not ''designed'' with relativity in mind (the Gravity Probe B certainly was designed with it in mind), Voyager and Cassini and others demonstrated the effects of relativity as they dipped into gravity wells and out of them with the frequency of the signal being sent to Earth. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The current statement is correct in the entry and we do not delete correct, educational information here. You cite some interesting articles which could also be added if they are given detail and explanation suitable for a high-quality encyclopedia. I took a quick look at your articles and they seem to be designed for public consumption, lacking satisfactory detail of a scientific level. But feel free to add a paragraph '''without exaggeration''' that explains clearly what you think these experiments demonstrate. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The [[libera]] edits and censorship have been reverted. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not trying to be liberal or censor, but I doubt anyone thought any less of Dicke due to his support of Brans-Dicke - which is merely the addition of a scalar field to the tensor of GR - in fact, all of einsteinan GR is viable under Brans-Dicke - if the scalar field is set to null - the difference is the allowable effect of long-distance large masses that is not rsquared. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:16, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:Um... this is supposed to be targetted towards high school students. Your really doing nothing but babbling to me, because I don't understand what you're talking about. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I made a change that was first related. Even by the methods that science uses to deny christian beliefs they both fail. Putting it that way is a little stronger, as well as more accurate. It's kind of hard to say that "string theory" has been a failure when just about every physicist who wants to work these days needs to learn and be productive in it. It's just entirely "thought experiments" though, and quirking math to make it fit. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 20:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If this article is directed at high school students, Dicke would not be mentioned, as his contribution to the theory of relativity was limited. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 09:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:His importance to this article for Conservapedia is that he believed in something other than General Relativity, and although very intelligent, never received a Nobel Prize for any of his findings. The point being made is that if you disagree with GR, that you won't get a Nobel Prize. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Why you would disagree with GR is beyond me, but… --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 14:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::Whether or not I disagree with GR is irrelevant. This wiki has a goal and purpose, and you need speak toward that audience. The intention of this article is to question and critique GR, not to assume that it is automatically true. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::You realize that what [[User:PhysicsNut|PhysicsNut]] was explaining - as I understood it - was that Dicke ''didn't'' really believe in something other than General Relativity? All that "babbling" was describing why Brans-Dicke theory differs little from GR (PhysicsNut, feel free to correct me on this). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::: That's correct. Brans-Dicke with Omega approaching infinity is General Relativity per Einstein. At no point did Dicke doubt that matter bent space-time. He merely postulated that there was another effect of matter that was not an r-squared effect. He didn't win the Nobel because someone else heard the CBR first - Dicke was just the one who realized it was proof-positive of the Big Bang. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 16:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:::: It's bias to insist on describing theories that compete with relativity in terms of relativity. Also, the explanation for why Dicke, one of the finest physicists of the 20th century responsible for ''multiple breakthroughs'', did not win a [[Nobel Prize]] is not as plausible as the reason given.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Says who? Don't we need "authoritive sources for all the changes you want to make," or is your insinuation that Professor Dicke (who proved the Big Bang as his most notable breakthrough) was a young-earth creationist enough? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

This article is an embarrassment. Whatever - this project is obviously doomed. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 21:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Your attitude is completely unhelpful. You should not continue to post. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 21:21, 18 December 2007 (EST)

::Maybe so, Puellanivis, but still, try not to write off editors so quickly! [[User:Physicsnut|Phyiscsnut]] is only new here, and may not have understood how [[Conservapedia]] differs from [[Wikipedia]] or other [[MSM]] outlets. Many editors have moved beyond initial misunderstandings to find ways to contribute positively to Conservapedia, despite ideological differences - so you needn't necessarily drive them off right away. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:06, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::: I don't why there are so many edits to the content page here, and I'll have to sort through them again. Relativity is a magnet for [[liberal bias]], but we're not going to allow such bias here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::Feebasfactor, your point is very well received. I definitely agree with your point. But people will not get anywhere without discussing and considering. If they express an attitude that this site will never be helpful if it rejects their viewpoint, then that's just silly. Aschlafly, I believe I had cleared it up fairly well with my last revert, but please feel free to review it. I think it attracts so much liberal bias, because they feel like it's home turf, or something, and get mad when anyone insults it. I suppose it's kind of the same thing as the liberals insulting the Bible. It just evokes such a strong response, that liberals get stupid (more so) and don't stop think and consider. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:27, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:::: Insult relativity all you want. Insult the memory of Robert Dicke and you can rot. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 20:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Physicsnut, you're making no sense. Please don't pollute our pages with namecalling nonsense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Nobel Prize Contradiction ==

In the beginning of the section Evidence for Relativity you state that, "There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity." This is part of your reasoning as to why GR is not scientifically viable, yet in the section Philosophical Impact of Relativity you state that Robert Dicke is still a an accomplished physician despite his never being awarded any Nobel Prizes. Now it seems to me that if you wish to still credit Robert Dicke as an accomplished physician, which is certainly true, then it would seem only fair to leave out the comment about GR never gaining Nobel recognition. At least not in the context of trying to discredit it. You can't have it both ways. Either it's possible to be reliable and not gain Nobel recognition, or not gaining Nobel recognition speaks to the validity of the subject. One or the other; can't be both. --[[User:Aralith|Aralith]]

: Your logic is defective, because Robert Dicke (physicist, not a physician) was slighted due to bias ''in favor of the theory of relativity''. That bias obviously does not explain the lack of Nobel Prizes for relativity. It's the lack of evidence that is the reason there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: If the Theory of Relativity is so commonly accepted among physicists (meant to write that in the last post but the wrong word came out of my fingers) how could it be that the Theory of Relativity hasn't gained Nobel recognition, which is voted on by a commitee made up of the same scientists who support said theory unless it is possible for a subject (person, theory, etc.) to be extremely important but not Nobel Prize worthy? In which case it makes perfect logical sense that both Dicke and GR could be a great person/theory respectively but not gain recognition from the Nobel committee.

== legal right to abortion ==

"For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[39]"

Unfortunately there is no link to the article in question. It would interest me much what the right to abortion has to do with the alleged curvature of space. Either the space is curved, or it isn't. Neither of both could ever affect my moral convictions.

{{unsigned|Harald}}

:This entire section is ridiculous and irrelevant. Clearly the curvature of spacetime was being referred to as a metaphor. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]]

::Please rewrite the section and/or move text to other articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Where is the reference to Obama helping publish the article? The current reference points to the JSTOR article abstract, which does not mention Obama's involvement whatsoever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Paradoxes? Nobel Prize? ==

Why are these things labeled as paradoxes? The rule is the speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant WITH RESPECT TO INERTIAL FRAME. The variability of c (the speed of light) through a medium is accepted and irrelevant as far as SR is concerned. That is due to the absorption and reemission of photons by atoms as light hits travels through glass (or air or fiber optics cable). Similarly, relativity neither prohibits nor "encourages" a c that varies with the age of the universe. Indeed, the nature of the constant is still a mystery, and it may indeed be dependent on some factors we are unaware of.

If anyone is confused, shoot me an email and I'll either give you a full explanation or point you in the direction of a good resource.

Also, there are several reasons Einstein never received a Nobel Prize for relativity:

-he recieved a prize for the photoelectric effect,which has laid the framework for quantum mechanics (arguably just as important). They may have had qualms over giving two to the same person (they haven't done it yet).

-initially, there was some resistance against it by the old guard of physicists who had wasted their lives pursuing the alternative (and stupid) ether explanation for the nature of c.

-the Nobel committee favors ideas that have practical applications (hence no prize for mathematics), and at the time relativity had none.

-as to why they haven't given him one recently...well, Einstein's dead, and they don't give prizes posthumously. (A sticking point, since the full significance of a theory might only be fully realized generations after its inception).

So saying the Nobel prize hasn't recognized Einstein for relativity is misleading and irrelevant.

And now I'm curious. This article seems to have an anti-relativity bias. Why is relativity unAmerican or unChristian (besides the fact that Einstein was a German Jew)?

And what's up with the Obama reference? I don't think God asks politicians (liberal or conservative) for their opinions when he establishes His natural law. (unsigned by User:QED)

:I looked at your edits for this and found them to be wanting. The information on the Nobel committee is accurate. It's a small part of the article and no specific conclusions are stated from it. I can see why you would believe this is not a slight on relatively, nevertheless it is true as written. In the absense of any counter evidence, such as writings by the Nobel committee explaining this, it should be allowed to stand. Your other point is, temporarily, out of bounds. You may believe that relativity allows for faster than light movement 'virtually', but unless you have a source, it's not going to be included. In other words your conjecture is not going to trump a source that appears to take a neutral position.

:Lastly, do not try to play the minority card again. You aren't Johnny Cochran. The article on Einstein is extensive and written with great respect. I'm assuming you could already have checked it up to see the view on him at CP. Consider this to be your one and only warning in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:38, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:: User: Learn together's analysis is superb. The polemic comments above by QED seem to have little relation to the actual entry here, or to science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

== Questions ==

The introduction refers to "a principle which led to the first theory", but as far as I can see, there's no further reference to or explanation of this. What is this referring to?

It's been asked a couple of times above, but not answered as far as I can see: What relevance does Obama's comment have in this article?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:54, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: The reference to "principle" should be to postulates. That's been fixed. The reference to Obama is explained enough, don't you think? It describes political support for the theory, and use (or misuse) of it for political gain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:: It hasn't been explained on this talk page at all. Harald asked the question above, Kristkrispies added a criticism, and the only reply was from Ed Poor suggesting the section be rewritten. QED asked about it also, and the reply didn't address that point.
:: However, rereading the footnote (or did I miss that before?), I can see a very tenuous connection, but not one that warrants it being included in this article. I suggest it be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:44, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, I'm assuming you're referring to the Obama reference. The heading explains it. Political insights are a key part of this site, and explaining [[political benefit]] to something is essential to understanding why it is emphasized and/or misrepresented. The [[theory of relativity]] is used, or misused, to advance [[liberal]] goals, and the Obama reference is an important illustration of that. Would you like to see more examples?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, I was referring to the Obama reference. Not, it's actually the opposite of the heading, because it is (mis)using relativity (physics) to support something political, not political support of relativity which is what the heading refers to. And as such, it's only of marginal if any real relevance to an article about relativity. I guess, though, I can see ''some'' point in it. That is, it's like an article about [[comet]]s mentioning that there was a musical group named [[The Comets]]; a bit of barely-related trivia, but the sort of thing that Wikipedia and Conservapedia sometimes do (often under the heading of "cultural references"). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

== My edits ==
I added a bit more information in the introduction to general relativity, because, as written, the article didn't really explain what the idea behind general relativity was. I don't think the edit is perfect, so people are free to tweak it or add more.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:12, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I also deleted "at infinite speed" from the sentence that said in classical physics light travels at infinite speed in a straight line. In classical physics, light still travels at c (approx 300,000 km/s), as Maxwell or any book on electrodynamics can tell you. In fact, it was this very observation that got people all caught up in the ether theory, because Maxwell's equations made direct reference to the speed of light. Consequently, people assumed that the equations had to be referring to the speed of light with respect to some fixed medium, i.e., the ether. Of course, we all know how well that theory worked out.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about the Nobel prize committee not recognizing SR/GR in the evidence for SR/GR section. Mostly, the sentence just seems out of place with the rest of the section. Also, the reference provided was just a link to the Nobel committee homepage.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 13:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the last section: time dilation and creation science. If we start including every crackpot scientific theory ever proposed, this page is going to become enormous.--[[User:Mathoreilly|Mathoreilly]] 14:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:I see you are not around to respond, but including the latest creationary thinking doesn't mean that crackpot theories will be included. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== New Edits, Proposed edits ==
This article needs some major work, and I don't mind diving in and trying to correct some things. I added something on the equivalence principle because the existing information about general relativity was mostly mathematical with no physical insight. I'll try to clean up more when I have more time. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also corrected a mistake about force defined in special relativity. The way it was written it wasn't defining a vector. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Further, I would really like to clean up the experimental evidence section, but there appears to be some contention regarding GPS, so I thought I'd discuss it with other editors here. The GPS definately DOES include some relativistic corrections. Consider the 1996 paper referenced in the article, on page 193 of the journal, page 5 of the article the authors tell us "The GPS operational control system corrects the pseudoranges measured by its monitor stations for the sum of the gravitational and velocity effects." What the article discusses is that the corrections are merely the average corrections, not the full specific velocity/gravitational effects. The article is being used misleadingly to make an unsupported claim. If no one objects in a day or two, I'll make the changes. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to remove the stress on Dicke's theory, as Dicke's theory is basically just an extension of GR. Dicke's theory is still a metric theory of gravity involving curved space time, so most of the discussion of GR should be applicable to Dicke's theory. Dicke's theory should probably be included in another article. Also, the contention that Dicke didn't get a nobel because he proposed an alternative theory needs some supporting information or a citation or I think it should be removed. Again, if no one objects, I'll make the change. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I also plan, given time, to give a more "layman" style description of GR following my brief discussion on the equivalence principle. For students, diving straight into tensors, geodesics and field equations will most likely obscure the physics. --[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Einstein's Cross/Ring and Gravitational Lensing==
I think it'd useful to have a picture of gravitational lensing in the proof section. As I'm not an admin, I can't upload it. There's the picture found on wikipedia which is known as "Einstein's Cross," but there are plenty of other examples of gravitational lensing that can be found in the public domain: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/search.php?words=lens&x=0&y=0&method=and&format=normal&sort=score&config=picturealbum&restrict=entire_collection%2Fpr&exclude=]. I suggest picking a nice looking one and displaying it. I'm personally partial to the double ring found here: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/pr2008004a/]. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 20:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

: The images don't add anything new of substantive value. What's really needed here is more explanation about whether twice as much bending of light by relativity is really predicted and shown, compared to the prediction of bending of light by Newton's theory. Most people are misled to think that Newton's theory does not predict the bending of light, when it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:: I tried to edit, read it over, reverted it as it wasn't making sense. However, I think there should be something about photons being able to move at speeds other than c in the bit about Newtonian lensing. My phrasing was really poor, thus the self-revert. I may take another crack at this later when I can get the words right.--[[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

::: The bending of light in Newtonian physics is not a trivial issue. The mass can approach zero and it still bends, for example. How much it bends is debatable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a page about the bending of light under Newtonian Dynamics? Most people don't know about this and I think an explanation that's less technical than the linked source might help. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 15:07, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Science And Math Facts That Prove Einstein's Blatant Error In His Relativity Theory ==
With all due respect, but with regard to truth in real science, my writing here is to provide undeniable mathematical and science fact that special relativity is false science.
For information this math proof was written on Wikipedia about two years ago and they squelched the truth in science by a vote of 8 to 1, and even though a supposed expert in relativity wrote that the math proofs did in fact prove relativity to be totally wrong, in the end he chose to live a lie and to squelch the truth.
In the end you can also squelch truth in real science by determining that truth by the undeniable science and math facts written here or to live according to truth. Either is your choice but squelching will only suppress science facts and true science. So I am going to write the science and math that shows undeniable truth and you can decide. [[User:StevenCrum|StevenCrum]] 16:31, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
:Yeah. Sure. You, with only a mediocre grasp on the process of writing have a proof simple enough to put on wikipedia, yet it has evaded the planet's most brilliant scientists and mathematicians, essentially the brightest men in human history, for a century. I'd like to see this. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, I did some basic googling, and find that you've been going on about this for several years now, but have a pitifully poor grasp of relativistic theory. Well... welcome to Conservapedia, I guess. We're nothing if not openminded. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and beliefs

2009-03-18T22:57:22Z

BHarlan: NOBODY AS Undo revision 641406 by Krysg (Talk)

I'm not touching this, though I do think panspermia needs to be added under Origins of Life. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:30, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:That's a rarely held view (I think), but it may merit inclusion if common. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:52, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::So is limited speech, but panspermia is still a view held by some atheists. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought weak atheists denied they had a belief system and strong atheists acknowledge they hold beliefs. I don't want to change anything without being sure. Can anyone clarify?[[User:MBBurke|MBBurke]] 17:36, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Atheistic Style

2009-03-18T17:10:41Z

BHarlan: /* Black Holes */ I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the Black Hole page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. ~~~~

== Where's the problem? ==
You certainly have a point, people do need to start making citations for what they write. But what is the problem with marking the entry being without citations, it is 100% true. I thought we didn't censor due to ideological reasons here. Therefore I am reverting it. Andy if you can give me a good reason for why marking an article as "uncited" when it has '''zero''' citations is wrong then I will leave it alone.

: "Lynus", you have to make a contribution before you starting complaining. Got it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:03, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Wait, so I can't mark an article as "unsourced" even though it is unsourced? Why even have the tag enabled? You even agree that it is unsourced so why can I not tag it with something truthful?--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 20:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: I have looked for citations. And have not been able to find any that support the claim that it is common for atheists to ascribe to #s 3,4,5,6,8,most of 9, and 11. I have also found that the others are worded poorly (9,10,7,8,and 3) A number of the posts (9) in particular is wrong on multiple levels. If you like I can re-work the entire article into a more encyclopedic entry, however I figured that I should ask first here and point out the flaws present in the article before changing things unilaterally since people seem to go missing if they do that around here. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 22:18, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::No that wasn't against you. For some reason the page displayed a giant Hitler picture and yours was the last edit since Andys and thats why I reverted it. Apparently is was a template issue.--[[User:Lynus|Lynus]] 22:45, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:::Ah my apologies. Ill remove the accusation. On another note, Andy. Blackholes can be detected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7774287.stm , http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723142119.htm --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:46, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Childish==
Isn't this a bit childish? [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 11:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

In what ways? --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:16, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:It's just a personal essay, based on solely personal opinion, and not really wholly true at that. I've proposed for deletion. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:25, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree, that this is wholly based on assumptions. How do you support an article deletion? [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 17:33, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:::As this page was created by the site owner I wouldn't even consider suggesting that the article should be deleted. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Josiah and "TheEvilSpartan", let's improve the entry. Think positively, not negatively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: If you wish to nominate the page for deletion you need to insert the delete template at the top of the page. See [[Templates|here]] for template information. However, I should warn you that as this article was written by Andy Schlafly it does not need to contain any citations. That is one of the unwritten rules of Conservapedia. Further, the delete notice will likely be removed by one of the sysop/acolytes, probably Crocoite (see, for example, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=385539&oldid=385523 here]). And it is quite likely that you will be blocked (see, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Crocoite&page=User%3AGDewey here]). --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

:: That's false about me. This is a work-in-progress and much of it is indisputable. The demands that it be deleted are obviously ideological, and we do not allow liberal censorship here. That should be obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: Really? Let's see shall we? --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 18:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Has anyone here ever talked to a real atheist? Sit down and have a chat with me and you'll soon see that there is a reason there is no citations on this page. Heck, I'll even null out a few of your points; Newton definitely was motivated by religion (I do believe that he was out to use the gift of intelligence), some of the most influential scientists have been religious. Me personally, I think that not believing something/someone created everything makes everything more beautiful (personally I love micro-biology, those little critters are so fascinating), as they just came together that way (in reference to a depressed world-view). Of course, I think there are problems out there now, but I know that we as people can fix them. As for arbitrary concepts such as love, I'm not sure how they came about (please do not tell me God) but they are great emotions and provide different degrees of functional guidance (morals and such). Pleas do not think I am being a smartaleck or sarcastic, as my personal beliefs are some of the few things I never joke around about.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smarter ==

I'd like to think that we ''are'' smarter then 100 years ago, but I'm bot an atheist.

On another note: This article is among a series that make Conservapedia a laughing stock, if we really want to be taken seriously, we should refrain from this. In what other Encyclopedia would you find something like this? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:37, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: DLerner, if you fear mockery, then you won't make much progress finding and spreading the truth. A little more concern about the truth and less concern about who among the less informed are laughing would be beneficial to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: : I don't fear mockery, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia! Now, if their is research showing that atheists are prone to such styles then go right ahead, but for some reason I have a feeling this is someones personal feeling towards atheists - though he/she has every right to have such feelings, I really can't see a basis for publishing them in an encyclopedia. (As an essay this would be wonderful, but as an article?) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::It's not that we fear mockery, it's that this article invites - no, deserves - mockery. There are no references to back up what is said - it's just the author's thoughts. Some of it is just wrong based on personal experience (Conservapedia allows contributions based on personal experience, doesn't it?). Conservapedia would be better off without it. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:51, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Incidentally I ''love'' the bit about how atheists have "a perception (often wrong) of what most people think". That describes the author of this article. Are we sure this isn't a parody introduced by someone trying to make us look bad?) [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 12:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

'''

== My Fundamentalist Alterations ==

'''

Yeesh, I edited this page about 4 months ago in an attempt to make the content so laughably fallacious, uninformed, assertive and double-standard laden that it shouldnt have lasted the day. Its both amusing and depressing to see it here some 16+ weeks later...

"overreliance and a dependance on often OUTDATED TEXTS."

Hmm

"a refusal to recognize how democracy relies on Christianity, and how no atheistic culture has ever managed to sustain a lasting democracy"

Aside from, erm, oh yeah, most of the countries in Europe...

"a generally pessimistic, worthless and depressing view of life"

Lol, well Im not surprised this one managed to stay up...

"an unshakeable faith...in life in outer space"

Hahahaha,

Oh very dear...

Think critically people, good day to you...

== Merging ==

Conservative and I have been working on [[Atheist beliefs]], and it seems like the content of this page might be incorporated into it, seeing as most of the listings are in fact beliefs. Thoughts? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== Black Holes ==

Have [[Black Hole]]s been detected yet? There's a nascent discussion going on at that page. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:If I'm not mistaken—and that ''does'' happen more often than I'd like—I don't believe that they've ever been directly observed. Just a lack of light and the gravity that it produces leads some scientists to believe in their existance, but I'm no scientist. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16356-2008-the-year-in-astronomy.html 2008: The year in astronomy].--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:00, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:I just don't trust Big Astronomy on this issue. It's really hard to find reliable sources in the area, since most claim things that are really just silly and bizarre. For this reason, I discount most "discoveries" from that area. I mean, these people "discovered" the Big Bang! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 12:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What is "Big Astronomy"'s motive in falsifying data about black holes? Their existence has little, if anything, to do with the theory of the Big Bang and presents no problem for Creationism. [[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 13:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Outrageous claims about black holes sell lots of magazines to lots of naive people. And let's not forget that [[liberals]] get a thrill out of [[deceit]] for its own sake alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::: So it's your contention that black holes don't exist? Despite the fact that [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA] have spotted them? Are you saying that NASA is lying? Given that your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Black_hole&diff=604724&oldid=604696 brother] also believes NASA, are you saying your brother is naive?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 15:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

::::: What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted" them, they '''inferred''' them. These scientists infer many other things which we know to be false. This reduces their credibility.
::::: Do you never disagree with your brother? Has your brother never been wrong? Has your brother never been tricked by men seeking to do evil, or men who were fooled, themselves? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::::::"What a bizarre comment! NASA hasn't really "spotted them, they "inferred " them." Only two problems with that statement: i) The staggering ignorance you have shown about the work carried out in the detection of singularity objects (are you even aware of how such objects are spotted? No, didn't think so); and ii) I assume that when you see a dog you only infer that it is a dog because you haven't carried out a full genetic check of the animal and the wealth of other evidence provided isn't good enough for you (oh, and if you are having trouble equating point ii with the discussion at hand - it's called a metaphor and is used as a teaching aid). As for the point about brothers is it your contention that RSchlafly is too dense, ignorant, dumb and stupid to study the evidence and come to his own conclusions? Are you saying that he blindly follows whatever somebody tells him to do or think? Is that how you have at the beliefs or knowledge you have? Are you saying that RSchlafly's knowledge of physics isn't good enough for him to independently study the evidence, despite the impressive depth of knowledge he has already shown about such matters on this site? Why do you equate the discovery of black holes with 'evil'? Do they threaten your beliefs in some way? If it does then why? No scientific discovery has ever threatened my belief and faith. Papal astronomers are perfectly happy with the fact that black holes exist and have been spotted, are you now claming to know more about science and faith than those who serve the church that is the foundation of your particular religion (assuming you are a christian)? Are you even aware that papal astronomers and the Holy See have stated that the possibility of alien life existing ''" does not clash with christian belief"''?-[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:08, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Given that they get their news from places like [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/07-112.html NASA]…--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:52, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Well they didn't "discover" the big bang theory persay, though they have made many observations to support it. See [http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html here]. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: "persay" isn't a word, and nobody said they "'discovered' the big bang theory". I said they "'discovered' the Big Bang". Do you see the difference? If you open your eyes, you will see. You will see.
:: Also, may God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:Yay, black holes in an argument. But back onto topic...BHarlan, if you mean by 'discovered' that they have actually seen a sigularity, or watched a mass become spaghettified as it reaches the hole, then no. Science has only inferred that they exist by pinpointing areas that are completely dark, surrounded by a 'ring' of light [The edge of the Event Horizon]. Thus, they have theorized that something, most likely a star collapsed upon itself, is producing enough gravity in the area to pull in even particles [or waves, depending on your slant] of light. That is how science works. A true scientist never says 'I know for certain that...', but 'I have observed and believe that...' in their hypotheses. Which means that even though the theory is sound, it could be wrong, and therefor corrected. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)

:: No, that isn't "how science works." Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations. Black holes are a magazine-type concept, an extension of mathematics, that were not observed first and in fact have not been observed in a meaningful way ever. It's amusing that some fall for this popularized concept, just as they fell for extraterrestrial life several decades ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Regarding "[[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:43 28 March 2009 (CST)": Cody, are you "editing from the future" as a comment on your belief in black holes? It won't convince people here.
:::I won't add to Aschlafly's comments except to say that the [[Black Hole]] page needs a serious rewrite to remove both honest mistakes and DinsdaleP-style confusion. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-13T03:02:57Z

BHarlan: /* RJJensen and the Rolling Stones */ ::One last note: the idea that Huckabee is some conservative litmus test is bizarre. He has called for more government intervention, for instance, into private he

This sentence,

("He has criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too oriented towards the wealthy, although the Congressional Budget Office released a report in 2004, that claimed the opposite." )

does not have a source, and as far as i have seen is not supported by his statements [http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm|statements]. I may be wrong, but this allegation should be taken off the article, unless proven otherwise. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, this sentence at the end of the top summary should be fixed:

 "His victory has placed moved him unto the top tier of Republican primary canidates[3][4]."

--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==

hey im supprised that there isn`t more info on his religious views, even fox are suggesting that all the religious talk means he doesn`t have to talk about real politics. Personally I quite like the guy he seems like a genuine caring person but I think if he does win the republican nomination the democrats will win the election. He is too conservative to pull in any democrat votes. This is what fox are saying and I think it might be true, if he wins the nomination the republicans dont stand a chance of winning the presidency. I know this might be a little hard to swallow for some but i think its true, just as the democrats dont stand a chance if the nominate a far left nut, the same (not that im calling any1 a nut) could be said for the GOP. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

By the way in not American im british but i find American politics fasinating, British politics are dull and theres no difference in the parties, all of them, even our most conservative mainstream party is centre, maybe centre left! If you do want to vote for a conservative party the only option is the BNP (British National Party) but them are racists so no-one likes them and they get like 3% of the vote. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Mike Huckabee is actually a reliable candidate? ==

[http://www.anncoulter.com/],
<blockquote>Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.</blockquote>
Another source: [http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2786 Mike Huckabee by James Buchanan] .
[http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2585 Mike Huckabee disgraceful records]

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that [[Ron Paul]] is the right conservative candidate. [[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 09:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Talk pages on CP are actually meant to discuss the ''article'', not a general discussion forum about the ''subject'' of the article. What '''you''' ''think'' about eg Mike Huckabee is irrelevant. Make a referenced contribution to the article or drink a nice cup of "shsssssh" :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I've heard that he hasn't stood up well for freedom of education. Could be bad for homeschoolers if he becomes president.

--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)Double Edge
== Gossip removed ==

I took out a section that was just put back in, with the editor saying it was only fair to put in controversy about both sides. This is "controversy" about his son! This deserves no place in an article about him. If you have controversies actually about the candidate, feel free to add them. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there is reason to mention this particular incident. Mike Huckabee is now facing questions as to how large of a role he played in preventing a state investigation into the incident. The then Chief of State Police has testified that people close to Huckabee (his attorney and Chief of Staff) personally called the local prosecuting attorney to reduce the chances of an investigation. It is currently unclear how large a role Huckabee took in stopping the investigation into his son's actions, but it is certainly relevant as it is a possible example of corruption. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 16:24, 4 January 2008

: This is [[liberal]] claptrap, the kind of [[gossip]] that has ruined [[Wikipedia]] and poisons debate of the issues. It's pathetic, really. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Not only is proof lacking, but there are not even any charges. It has no place here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The lack of charges, and innocent until proven guilty is not the issue here. The issue is that there is the possibility that Huckabee abused his position of power to protect his son. The candidate's political stance is irrelevant here, it is a question as to whether his past actions show his willingness to protect those close to him from the law. All crimes, no matter who committed them, should be investigated to the full extent of the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:22, 4 January 2008

: Some people who don't like Huckabee have raised unsubstantiated charges that are not particularly serious anyway. Not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Unsubstantiated? The chief of state police testified that he was pressured by two people very close to Huckabee to cease any investigation. That seems pretty substantial. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:28, 4 January 2008

: Not here. Go to [[Wikipedia]] for that National-Enquirer stuff. We have more significant things to discuss and learn here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:During our debate over the premature reporting of Heath Ledger's death on Main Page:Talk, these rules didn't seem to apply Mr.Schalfly. Ledger should have been 'innocent until proven guilty' as you suggest Huckabee should be, and given that my cited references to a quality Perth newspaper were removed and replaced by National Enquirer cites, this rings pretty hollow, my friend. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:23, 5 February 2008 (EST)
::I can't find the NE cite? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:54, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::It was yourself that inserted the National Enquirer cite, HelpJazz - see my CNN cite [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=379973 here] which you replaced with your own National Enquirer [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=380044 cite]. Also see Mr.Schlafly's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=next&oldid=379988 removal] of my cite of a well-respected newspaper, The West Australian [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=379988 here]. Seems like National Enquirer cites and assuming innocence before guilt is proven are the norm around here? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:42, 6 February 2008 (EST)

:::I see, I thought you were talking about this page. I didn't actually replace anything with a National Enquirer cite, I mearly suggested (on the talk page) that a good place to find more stories about celebrity values would be a newspaper which focuses on the dirty details of celebrities. Apparently nobody got the joke.
:::Back to the issue at hand: the rule is "no gossip". If another page breaks this rule, you can't use this as a reason why you, also, can break the rule (see [[Ad_hominem#Forms_of_Ad_Hominem|tu quoque]]. You can use this as an argument to appeal the rule, but in the mean time you should still follow it. Instead, make your case (independent of the fact that gossip is allowed elsewhere) as to how this is not gossip and why it should be allowed. In this case, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that possible abuse of power 10 years ago is relevant enough to the present for inclusion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Whats interesting here is that this is considered gossip and ignored by the conservapedia junta and considered "not serious" despite a chief of police testifying about it. However I am almost certain that if it was a claim against say, Barack Obama, it would no doubt receive criticism. Rebuttal?
MetcalfeM

== Keep goin Huck! ==

I added this to the article, but I wanted to say that [http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/ despite finishing third] in the Republican Primary, I expect Huck to pull it out in the long run! [[South Carolina]] has always been kind to social conservatives and openly evangelical candidates!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 00:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
==Additions==
::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:54, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Hollywood Values ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&curid=7413&diff=638101&oldid=637974 Though I like Huckabee's values on most issues, his explicit declaration that he would not treat regular citizens the same way made me shake my head in disappointment. "The crime wasn't that bad" is only something I expect to hear from liberals.] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:26, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::if you ever had a speeding ticket you with think less harshly of this "crime" [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I have had two. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 17:37, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::then you're twice the criminal of the guitar player. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:47, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
And nobody's expunging my record, even though I am not traveling around promoting drug use and promiscuity. What I did was illegal, and I paid the price and had the note put on my DMV record.
Speeding is wrong, but I'm not complaining about Richards's speeding. I'm complaining about the selective treatment of Hollywood celebrities as special citizens. I have never, and will never, pardon a rock musician just because he is famous. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 19:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== RJJensen and the Rolling Stones ==

I dropped the parody of making out Huckabee to be a purveyor of Hollywood values. Conservatives never saw him that way and of course a speeding ticket is not a criminal offense. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

:It is not parody. Do not call me names, sir. Yes, it is a minor offense, but special treatment for rock stars is exactly that, no matter how you liberals spin it.
:I will no longer engage you or your like on this subject. Good day. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 22:58, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

::One last note: the idea that Huckabee is some conservative litmus test is bizarre. He has called for more government intervention, for instance, into private health choices of individuals, including insurance choice. I support most of what Huckabee stands for, including his faith-focused worldview. This encyclopedia, however, '''does not''' censor. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 23:02, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Mike Huckabee

2009-03-13T02:59:29Z

BHarlan: go coddle rock stars on wikipedia! Undo revision 638487 by RJJensen (Talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Mike Huckabee
|image=Hdyute7.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Janet Huckabee]] (1974-present)
|religion=Baptist
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Arkansas
|terms=July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007
|preceded=Jim Guy Tucker
|succeeded=[[Mike Beebe]]
|former=n
}}
}}
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is an American politician who served 11 years as governor of Arkansas (1996-2007) and was the runner-up to winner [[John McCain]] in the contest for the 2008 Republican nomination for president. <ref>[http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/04/huckabee-bows-out/ ''Huckabee bows out''] 5 March 2008 Arkansas Online</ref> A former [[Baptists]] minister, he is [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]].

Huckabee, after many years as a television personality and motivational speaker, combines conservative policy positions with a winsome friendly attitude that puts voters at ease. He came under attack as a "tax-and-spend liberal", especially by rival [[Fred Thompson]].<ref>See criticism reported by Jennifer Rubin, "Romney and Huckabee: Club for Growth Comparisons," [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081 from ''Human Events'' Aug. 24, 2007] </ref> Huckabee's funding base was meager, with his family providing much of his organizational support. Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee was viewed favorably by conservatives and Christian organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee would catch on with Republican primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse".<ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref>

Critical to his move from obscurity to the top rank of political contenders was his evangelical base, his conservatism, his appeal to southerners and his winsome personality.<ref> Dan Balz, "Huckabee's Rise and Rise," [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/10/post_234.html ''Washington Post'' Dec. 10, 2007]; Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin, "Suddenly, Huckabee Is in Romney's Rearview Mirror," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112401338_pf.html ''Washington Post'' Nov. 25, 2007]; "Shields and Brooks Mull Iowa Election Push, Baseball Scandal" [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/sbbaseball_12-14.html PBS, Dec. 14, 2007]</ref>
After losing to McCain Huckabee became a contributor on Fox News <ref>http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/12/huckabee-joins-fox-as-contributor/ Huckabee joins Fox as Contributor </ref> and now hosts his own show called 'Huckabee.'
==Career==
Huckabee was born and raised in Hope, Arkansas into a working class family.<ref> He did not overlap in Hope with [[Bill Clinton]] (1946- ) who was also born in Hope; Clinton left as a small child.</ref> Huckabee in his early teens became a radio announcer and preacher. He attended nearby Oachita Baptist College (BA 1975), and studied theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas (1976-80, no degree.) He was minister at Baptist churches in Pine Bluff and Texarkana, Arkansas in the 1980s, gaining fame for his preaching style and for his religious shows on television. He was elected in 1989 as president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention, with 490,000 members; he was elected as a moderate in opposition to the hardline conservatives.

Huckabee is the author of health books featuring his exercise and weight-loss exercise program, and bass guitar player for his rock band, Capitol Offense. He is married to Janet (née McCain); they have three children.

==2008 Caucuses and Primaries==
''Main Article: [[Mike Huckabee 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''

Almost unknown in mid 2007, he climbed the polls steadily and won the closely watched Iowa caucus on Jan. 3, 2008. His base of support comprises "born again" evangelical Christians, who comprise 35% of the GOP voters.<ref>. Evangelicals comprise 48%-68% of Republicans in the South and border states, 47% in Iowa, and only 11% in New Hampshire. Andrew Kohut, "The G.O.P.’s Unanswered Question," [http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/the-gops-unanswered-question/ ''New York Times'' Jan. 11, 2008]</ref>

Huckabee's campaign started to take off in summer 2007 after the high profile [[Ames Straw Poll]], where he came in 2nd place (18%) to Gov. Romney's 32%, ahead of Sen. Brownback's 15%. He won second place despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote. His victory placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref><ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref> His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm, reasonable and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.

He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "valuesdebate".<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined.<ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref>

Poll numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability had him steadily moving up in key primary states. He was victorious in the Republican Caucuses at the [[Iowa Caucuses]]<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref>, and came in third place in the New Hampshire Primary, where he personally expected to not even place in the top three.<ref>http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/</ref>

Huckabee perfected the shoestring operation. He raised only $2.3 million by October 2007, less than 5% of the money of each main rival. He never had enough money to send advance teams to organize events or drum up crowds, nor could he afford fund-raising operations, private polls, big-name political consultants, or a staff of policy advisers and media experts. He relied on volunteers from churches and the home-school movement to schedule his events. The retail politics of the first states did not cost much. He won in Iowa by relying on his quick wit, fluent oratory, and in lieu of commercials, as many TV and radio talk-show appearances as he could schedule. To draw crowds his rallies featured Hollywood star [[Chuck Norris]] and his own playing the bass guitar with local rock bands. As the election calendar turned to larger states he lacked the cash to compete, so in late Jan. 2008 he cut back on Florida operations to concentrate on a few smaller, overlooked southern states on Feb. 5.<ref>David D. Kirkpatrick, "Huckabee’s Money Woes Curtail Campaign," [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/huckabees-money-woes-curtail-campaign/ ''New York Times'' Jan. 22. 2008]</ref>

He came in third in the [[Michigan]] primaries and a close second to McCain in [[South Carolina]]. He came fourth in the Florida Primary, losing to McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Although he lost ground after a consistent string of defeats, he continued on to [[Super Tuesday]]. He succeeded in [[Alabama]], [[Arkansas]] (his home state), [[Georgia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[West Virginia]]. His success helped cause Mitt Romney to withdraw from the race. Despite McCain's unbeatable lead in delegates, Huckabee continued on trying to cause a split convention. He won the primaries in [[Kansas]] and [[Louisiana]]. But he lost all the primaries on [[Super Tuesday II]] and McCain succeeded in gaining the 1,191 delegates needed to win. Huckabee withdrew and endorsed Senator McCain.

He spoke at the Republican National Convention in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket, along with his former rivals, [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], and [[Sam Brownback]].

== Record as Governor ==
As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee both cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas legislature enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and fuels taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature.

In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors".<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref>

In a controversial move, Huckabee aggressively pushed for the release of [[Wayne DuMond]], a serial rapist who had raped a 17-year-old girl, [[Ashley Stevens]]. Conservative Christians came in support of DuMond, after he had converted to Christianity in prison. Huckabee became DuMond's public advocate, writing him a personal letter of support and lobbying for his release to the state parole board. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45053</ref> The parole board agreed. Huckabee has denied having any involvement with Wayne DuMond, and his website claims he had not pressured the state parole board, despite three of the parole board members saying he had done so.

== Political Beliefs ==
===Taxes===
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[FairTax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Spending===
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million.<ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref> Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref>

===Abortion===
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life.

He would favor [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception.

===Marriage===
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref>

===Second Amendment Rights===
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed [[Handgun permits|handgun permit]] holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref>

===Immigration===
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy [[immigration]] bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref>

===[[Hollywood Values]]===

Notorious rock star [[Keith Richards]] (of the [[Rolling Stones]]) was convicted in Arkansas of a driving violation. Huckabee pardoned Richards, yet admitted he would not do so for someone who couldn't "play guitar like Keith Richards". [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/14/huckabee_could_face_hurdles_from_the_past/]

==Vertical Politics==
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering [[Partisan politics in the United States|partisanship]]. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don't care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It's what I call 'Vertical Politics'." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref>

== Personal ==
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]
Huckabee was born in Hope, Arkansas, the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give Hope one more chance."
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.''<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas; he graduated in only two and a half years.

The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in New Orleans, the Red Rocks Amphitheater in Denver, and for two presidential inauguration balls.
[[Image:Huckabee1.jpg|thumb|290px|left|[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-09-2007/0004719299&EDATE= Dec. 17, 2007 with cover story]]]
==Quotes==
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref>
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref>
* "[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."<ref>''http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx''[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx]</ref>
* "To think that we're going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but it's not going to happen." ''[[Washington Post]]'', May, 2006.
* "(I) propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country." ''Secure America Plan", December, 2007.
* "I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles and I still believe in them." (In response to questions about his continuing campaign even after the liberal news media dismissed his primary campaign as a failure.)<ref>''Mike Huckabee's campaign rolls on'' February 2008 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578452/Mike-Huckabee%27s-campaign-rolls-on.html]</ref>

==Endorsements==
====Organizations====
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref>

===South Carolina===
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary.<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref>

Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]].<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref> During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.

===Virginia===
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>

===New Hampshire===
Huckabee picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref> Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007

==External Videos==
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection]
===Supporter Videos===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]
===Personal Story===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]
===Ads===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]

===Speeches===
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]
==Bibliography==
* Barone, Michael, and Richard E, Cohen. ''Almanac of American Politics: 2006'' (2005)

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Arkansas Governors]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Clergy]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-13T02:58:22Z

BHarlan: /* parody */ :I will no longer engage you or your like on this subject. Good day. ~~~~

Mike Huckabee

2009-03-12T23:52:48Z

BHarlan: Undo revision 638101 by RJJensen (Talk)

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-12T23:52:09Z

BHarlan: /* Hollywood Values */ And nobody's expunging my record, even though I am not traveling around promoting drug use and promiscuity. What I did was illegal, and I paid the price and had the note put on

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-12T21:38:03Z

BHarlan: /* Hollywood Values */ typo

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-12T21:37:48Z

BHarlan: /* Hollywood Values */ :::;I have had two. ~~~~

This sentence,

("He has criticized President George W. Bush's tax cuts as being too oriented towards the wealthy, although the Congressional Budget Office released a report in 2004, that claimed the opposite." )

does not have a source, and as far as i have seen is not supported by his statements [http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm|statements]. I may be wrong, but this allegation should be taken off the article, unless proven otherwise. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 11:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, this sentence at the end of the top summary should be fixed:

 "His victory has placed moved him unto the top tier of Republican primary canidates[3][4]."

--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Religion ==

hey im supprised that there isn`t more info on his religious views, even fox are suggesting that all the religious talk means he doesn`t have to talk about real politics. Personally I quite like the guy he seems like a genuine caring person but I think if he does win the republican nomination the democrats will win the election. He is too conservative to pull in any democrat votes. This is what fox are saying and I think it might be true, if he wins the nomination the republicans dont stand a chance of winning the presidency. I know this might be a little hard to swallow for some but i think its true, just as the democrats dont stand a chance if the nominate a far left nut, the same (not that im calling any1 a nut) could be said for the GOP. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

By the way in not American im british but i find American politics fasinating, British politics are dull and theres no difference in the parties, all of them, even our most conservative mainstream party is centre, maybe centre left! If you do want to vote for a conservative party the only option is the BNP (British National Party) but them are racists so no-one likes them and they get like 3% of the vote. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 09:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Mike Huckabee is actually a reliable candidate? ==

[http://www.anncoulter.com/],
<blockquote>Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision.</blockquote>
Another source: [http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2786 Mike Huckabee by James Buchanan] .
[http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2585 Mike Huckabee disgraceful records]

I think that Mike Huckabee is a liberal hoax, who is temporarily supporting conservative ideas to be promoted in the GOP. I think that [[Ron Paul]] is the right conservative candidate. [[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 09:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Talk pages on CP are actually meant to discuss the ''article'', not a general discussion forum about the ''subject'' of the article. What '''you''' ''think'' about eg Mike Huckabee is irrelevant. Make a referenced contribution to the article or drink a nice cup of "shsssssh" :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I've heard that he hasn't stood up well for freedom of education. Could be bad for homeschoolers if he becomes president.

--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)Double Edge
== Gossip removed ==

I took out a section that was just put back in, with the editor saying it was only fair to put in controversy about both sides. This is "controversy" about his son! This deserves no place in an article about him. If you have controversies actually about the candidate, feel free to add them. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there is reason to mention this particular incident. Mike Huckabee is now facing questions as to how large of a role he played in preventing a state investigation into the incident. The then Chief of State Police has testified that people close to Huckabee (his attorney and Chief of Staff) personally called the local prosecuting attorney to reduce the chances of an investigation. It is currently unclear how large a role Huckabee took in stopping the investigation into his son's actions, but it is certainly relevant as it is a possible example of corruption. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 16:24, 4 January 2008

: This is [[liberal]] claptrap, the kind of [[gossip]] that has ruined [[Wikipedia]] and poisons debate of the issues. It's pathetic, really. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"? Not only is proof lacking, but there are not even any charges. It has no place here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The lack of charges, and innocent until proven guilty is not the issue here. The issue is that there is the possibility that Huckabee abused his position of power to protect his son. The candidate's political stance is irrelevant here, it is a question as to whether his past actions show his willingness to protect those close to him from the law. All crimes, no matter who committed them, should be investigated to the full extent of the law. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:22, 4 January 2008

: Some people who don't like Huckabee have raised unsubstantiated charges that are not particularly serious anyway. Not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Unsubstantiated? The chief of state police testified that he was pressured by two people very close to Huckabee to cease any investigation. That seems pretty substantial. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 17:28, 4 January 2008

: Not here. Go to [[Wikipedia]] for that National-Enquirer stuff. We have more significant things to discuss and learn here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:During our debate over the premature reporting of Heath Ledger's death on Main Page:Talk, these rules didn't seem to apply Mr.Schalfly. Ledger should have been 'innocent until proven guilty' as you suggest Huckabee should be, and given that my cited references to a quality Perth newspaper were removed and replaced by National Enquirer cites, this rings pretty hollow, my friend. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 22:23, 5 February 2008 (EST)
::I can't find the NE cite? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:54, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::It was yourself that inserted the National Enquirer cite, HelpJazz - see my CNN cite [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=379973 here] which you replaced with your own National Enquirer [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=380044 cite]. Also see Mr.Schlafly's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=next&oldid=379988 removal] of my cite of a well-respected newspaper, The West Australian [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&diff=prev&oldid=379988 here]. Seems like National Enquirer cites and assuming innocence before guilt is proven are the norm around here? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 16:42, 6 February 2008 (EST)

:::I see, I thought you were talking about this page. I didn't actually replace anything with a National Enquirer cite, I mearly suggested (on the talk page) that a good place to find more stories about celebrity values would be a newspaper which focuses on the dirty details of celebrities. Apparently nobody got the joke.
:::Back to the issue at hand: the rule is "no gossip". If another page breaks this rule, you can't use this as a reason why you, also, can break the rule (see [[Ad_hominem#Forms_of_Ad_Hominem|tu quoque]]. You can use this as an argument to appeal the rule, but in the mean time you should still follow it. Instead, make your case (independent of the fact that gossip is allowed elsewhere) as to how this is not gossip and why it should be allowed. In this case, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that possible abuse of power 10 years ago is relevant enough to the present for inclusion. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:59, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Whats interesting here is that this is considered gossip and ignored by the conservapedia junta and considered "not serious" despite a chief of police testifying about it. However I am almost certain that if it was a claim against say, Barack Obama, it would no doubt receive criticism. Rebuttal?
MetcalfeM

== Keep goin Huck! ==

I added this to the article, but I wanted to say that [http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-john-mccain-take-early-lead-in-new-hampshire-primary/ despite finishing third] in the Republican Primary, I expect Huck to pull it out in the long run! [[South Carolina]] has always been kind to social conservatives and openly evangelical candidates!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 00:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
==Additions==
::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:54, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Hollywood Values ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&curid=7413&diff=638101&oldid=637974 Though I like Huckabee's values on most issues, his explicit declaration that he would not treat regular citizens the same way made me shake my head in disappointment. "The crime wasn't that bad" is only something I expect to hear from liberals.] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:26, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::if you ever had a speeding ticket you with think less harshly of this "crime" [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
:::;I have had two. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 17:37, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Mike Huckabee

2009-03-12T17:26:11Z

BHarlan: /* Hollywood Values */ new section