{{userboxtop|Bob Sherman}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User American}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{User Reagan}}
{{User TEA Partier}}
{{User Republican}}
{{userboxbottom}}

My name is PVT Robert Jackson Sherman, Sr. and I am a Young-Earth Creationist and Tea Party activist. I believe Conservapedia is a great way to bring the truth to Americans suffering from the disgusting liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country.

== How I Found Conservapedia ==
As stated above, I am a huge supporter of Conservapedia's cause. Like many, I was fed up with all the obvious liberal bias that is found throughout Wikipedia and the media. I briefly considered starting my own wiki site that exemplifies ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian values but happened upon Conservapedia when looking for inspiration for how to start it. Conservapedia proved to be such a valuable, balanced, intellectual, and comprehensive source for the topics it discusses that I chose to use it for my own further education regarding politics and religion and even for news.

== About Me ==
All my life I've been a staunchly devoted fundamentalist Christian and a proud right-wing Republican. I'm part of my local Republican caucus in my native state of Idaho and I attend church every Sunday without fail. I attended Liberty University (Go Flames!), served for four years in the United States Army attaining the rank of Private, and now live with my wife and two sons. I firmly believe that the evolutionist, atheist agenda is profoundly detrimental to society and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. 
I read the Bible daily and take it literally. I stand by the ''fact'' that God created the Earth 6000 years ago and that a pair of all the animal species of the world fit into Noah's Ark. I vehemently oppose evolution; all the undeniable evidence science has proven about it is just a disgusting liberal, atheist ploy to brainwash America. God created animals in their present form. The Bible says so. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. End of story.
I have an overwhelming distrust of our president. All the endless time and honest devotion he's put into going to church and being a proper Christian is obviously just another ploy to trick America. His birth certificate is obviously fake as well. Yes, he's shown the country his legitimate birth certificate that proves beyond a doubt he was born in Hawaii, but I'm positive that by continuing to criticize and scrutinize we will once and for all prove it's a forgery and that Obama was born in Kenya. I also believe homosexuality is a choice; the fact that 2-3% of the world's population having the gene that causes homosexuality is clearly the work of Satan tempting these sinners. But I digress.
 
I do a lot of campaign work for the conservative, Christian Republicans who run for office.

== Main Contributions ==
Because I am relatively new here, I don't have very many contributions as of yet, but I plan on becoming a reliable, regular contributor to this site. I first created the page for [[Liopleurodon]], [[Soviet atheism]], [[Isaac Newton and atheism]], and [[Atheism and logic]]. As noted by user:Conservative, my work on Soviet atheism inspired Conservapedia's project to expand its atheism articles.

Talk:Liberalism

2011-07-21T01:26:51Z

BobSherman: /* Blanking */ new section

Liberalism

2011-07-21T01:23:29Z

BobSherman: Undo revision 891422 by Kwe19772002 (talk)

'''Liberalism''' can refer to a number of political philosophies derived from [[Classical liberalism]]. In this article the [[United States of America|American]] political platform referred to as "liberal" within the United States is contrasted with other meanings of the word, particularly in [[Europe]] and in other [[Parliamentary democracy|parliamentary democratic]] systems.

* "Whereas Liberalism is the triumph of emotion over [[reason]] (as defined historically), [[Conservatism]] is an applied intellectual process; based on observation, deduction, and the study of provable historical fact." [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26552 Sandy Stringfellow]
* "One of liberalism's many problems is that once an idea or program is proved wrong and unworkable, liberals rarely acknowledge their mistake and examine the root cause of their error so they don't repeat it." [http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2011/02/11/told_you_so Cal Thomas]

== United States ==

[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|350px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]

In the U.S. the word ''liberal'' is usually used to describe the platform espoused by the [[Democratic Party]], that is, support of [[social welfare]] systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy - combined with a certain brand of individual [[libertarianism]], emphasizing social equality, and (to a certain extent) rejection of traditional [[Judaism|Judeo]]-[[Christianity|Christian]] standards of [[morality]] as a proper foundation for [[law]].

The [[economic]] aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of the [[New Deal]] policies of the [[Great Depression]] era, as well as [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s "[[Great Society]]." The Democratic Party's idea of social liberty and equality, though, came much later, partly as a result of the [[Civil rights movement|civil rights]] and [[counterculture]] movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups.

== Europe and elsewhere ==

In Europe, ''liberalism'' refers to a political position that leans toward greater individual liberties and less government intervention in general. In short, this is the philosophy closest to [[classical liberalism]], and is commonly referred to in the United States as [[libertarianism]]. In Europe and elsewhere, then, the opposite of liberalism is not [[conservatism]], but [[authoritarianism]].

Because of this, the terms "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism", which are seen as contradictory in the U.S., are not so in Europe. "Conservative liberalism" simply refers to a less radical libertarian philosophy, and is often referred to as "law-and-order liberalism." Liberal conservatism is simply a variant of conservatism willing to allow for individual liberties, and, in a way, describes the ideology of the American [[Republican Party]]. Such examples of this obvious line of thought include the [[civil rights movement]], when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African American's right to have the choice of forced segregation.

The Liberal Party of Australia is the right-leaning party, in opposition to the [[liberal]] Labor Party, and is not to be confused with liberalism as an ideology.

== Nazism and socialism ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Nazism and socialism]]

[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was [[socialism|socialistic]] was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a [[socialism|socialist]] state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}}

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

== See also ==
*[[Progressivism]]
*[[Laissez faire]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[category:Anti-American]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2011-07-20T23:58:28Z

BobSherman: /* 2000s */

'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]''' 
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''
----

==Mother Nature==
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

:Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]).

::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not "science" to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]].

::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)

::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "[[peace movement]]", for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.

::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.

::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed. Thank you for sharing it. I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine. Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== "Bully pulpit" ==

How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

==Definition==

I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:As far as I can tell, it seems to be "words we like to use." I think it's pretty apparent that the claim that they "represent conservative values" is false... saying that, for example, the word "carpetbagger" represents conservative values is kind of insulting. Some of the words here are obviously included for their utility in showcasing liberal failings rather than their inherent "conservative value". I would argue that the using the term "conservative words" is actually kind of pejorative; while not quite as catchy, perhaps "words you may find useful" would be better? Calling them conservative words allows liberals to dismiss them more easily: "Those aren't ''real'' words, those are just conservative neologisms." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:00, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong! ==

For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."

Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

: That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=all&prmd=inl&sa=X&ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&ved=0CBEQpwU&source=lnt&tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about "[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]" stances or "[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]" lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the "Search within results" function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian "anti defamation" commission. Another half million are for "anti abortion". 184,000 deal with "anti immigration". And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band "Anti-flag". I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase "anti Christian" on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to "anti-Christian." [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Adding Obama Portmanteaus ==

I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Underdog ==

Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

: I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

== Excellent scholarship ==

In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a "1-2-4-8" geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Definition by example seems best here. Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list. You wouldn't request a definition for "List of Words beginning with G", so why are you demanding a definition for "Conservative term"? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you? We're not using them in any aberrant way. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. "List of Words beginning with G" is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what "conservative" means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the "excellent scholarship presented in this essay" smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a "conservative word" was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

"AmandaBunting" (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk. We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology. It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you. Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

== Maggie Thatcher ==

Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Possibility ==

''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

== Kiss of Death ==

The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name]. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
-

== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==

While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

: "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

:::Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

== Research method ==

I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.

This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Suggestion? ==

What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==

===Selection bias===
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: 

<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Probability</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>1/15</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>2/15</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>4/15</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>8/15</td></tr></table>

For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

: Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===An unbiased test===
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. 

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
<table><tr><th>Century</th><th>Number of Words</th></tr><tr><td>17th</td><td>151</td></tr><tr><td>18th</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>19th</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>20th</td><td>104</td></tr></table>

: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.

:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

===Table of random words===
{|class="collapsible collapsed"
!500 words
|-
|1 economics
2 storeroom
3 hunkers
4 sufficing
5 coffeehouses
6 stalagmites
7 therapy
8 sanitation
9 cheapskates
10 Caesareans
11 ringmaster
12 acclimate
13 penology
14 verandah
15 caregivers
16 fed
17 disengaged
18 whitecaps
19 dissertation
20 consignment
21 chainsaws
22 speeds
23 kinfolk
24 caribous
25 hobbyists
26 coefficients
27 protuberance
28 morphemes
29 Caroline
30 millionaires
31 recyclable
32 wilts
33 unreconstructed
34 chandeliers
35 palomino
36 joysticks
37 volleys
38 cajoling
39 bucksaws
40 spars
41 portaged
42 acoustically
43 humanize
44 hybridize
45 tipsters
46 overprices
47 marksmanship
48 fezes
49 depressant
50 auctioned
51 flamethrower
52 biking
53 artistic
54 agribusiness
55 jottings
56 pedicures
57 Cordilleras
58 slots
59 recording
60 unrealistic
61 rationalism
62 peacekeeping
63 aromatherapy
64 jackknife
65 champagne
66 horrendous
67 Quasimodo
68 excavator
69 chowders
70 arts
71 configure
72 civic
73 telegraphy
74 sweepstakes
75 euphoric
76 strategy
77 subgroup
78 shouting
79 gusher
80 telemarketing
81 glucose
82 booties
83 preponderated
84 manures
85 outspokenness
86 wiener
87 embeds
88 amped
89 sternums
90 empathy
91 cognomina
92 colitis
93 kimono
94 retched
95 singletons
96 megaphoned
97 respelled
98 Hindus
99 squiggle
100 irrigates
101 reconstructions
102 deceptiveness
103 colonialism
104 missioned
105 dyes
106 maladroit
107 tents
108 turfs
109 generalization
110 seamanship
111 duffers
112 scruffier
113 pollinate
114 bobcats
115 achieved
116 exerted
117 flapjack
118 Independence
119 lucidity
120 indenturing
121 enumerable
122 disenchanted
123 flashback
124 trilogies
125 colloquially
126 Colby
127 killjoys
128 lifelines
129 hydrotherapy
130 psychoanalysis
131 memorializing
132 bronchitis
133 rink
134 automobiles
135 dandy
136 schoolmarms
137 debriefing
138 glands
139 oceanography
140 jetted
141 hurdler
142 dependability
143 tactician
144 rotor
145 liturgies
146 quantified
147 wests
148 quitters
149 ocarinas
150 betting
151 apathetically
152 smoggier
153 Xenia
154 saris
155 dupe
156 voodooism
157 optimize
158 particularization
159 funereally
160 masterminding
161 capsizes
162 orchestrates
163 uncivilized
164 emphasized
165 skyrocket
166 plagiarist
167 politicoes
168 streptococci
169 pantsuits
170 waving
171 decontaminates
172 teensy
173 taxonomy
174 proselytizes
175 drollness
176 expectoration
177 legmen
178 modulations
179 diploma
180 Brandy
181 radar
182 pushiest
183 drill
184 lush
185 temperas
186 musicals
187 wheal
188 horticulture
189 cancan
190 jocularity
191 caramels
192 bipolar
193 sophisticated
194 injudicious
195 emulsion
196 ignore
197 cannonballed
198 swastika
199 overachievers
200 rubella
201 chuckhole
202 ersatz
203 breeziness
204 climaxes
205 explosiveness
206 empathizing
207 jumps
208 secularizing
209 sequoia
210 bibliography
211 prettying
212 bouldered
213 authorship
214 vocalizing
215 tarpons
216 camisoles
217 cowpox
218 tans
219 breathable
220 machines
221 tycoon
222 flicking
223 squishes
224 semiprofessional
225 feline
226 seedling
227 hankie
228 entitlement
229 abscissa
230 derisive
231 romance
232 overprice
233 beads
234 stipple
235 Kitty
236 jewelled
237 mascaraed
238 dissociation
239 moments
240 Spica
241 quaking
242 legislation
243 wobbly
244 scorches
245 books
246 gastrointestinal
247 finked
248 renegotiates
249 flautists
250 wrongheadedness
251 allergenic
252 squishiest
253 kickoffs
254 mecca
255 disses
256 woodwinds
257 discotheques
258 replacements
259 tomahawks
260 voluptuaries
261 salon
262 eliciting
263 resale
264 soporific
265 dosage
266 smokestacks
267 rationalists
268 subsumed
269 futzes
270 minutemen
271 stingrays
272 marathoner
273 vagina
274 propellers
275 rooftops
276 sensationalist
277 bluejackets
278 individualize
279 hyphenating
280 Xanthippe
281 federated
282 amortize
283 airfare
284 hyphenates
285 syncopates
286 sermonizing
287 biochemistry
288 babysat
289 yellows
290 riskier
291 cassocks
292 stated
293 Cordoba
294 Slinky
295 eventfully
296 nines
297 blabbermouths
298 fraternizes
299 bucked
300 Boolean
301 bivalve
302 ricochetted
303 toys
304 toted
305 commissars
306 cushioning
307 redeploy
308 poignancy
309 variegating
310 snuffbox
311 stoplight
312 biochemists
313 bicycling
314 disenfranchised
315 nosing
316 enlightenment
317 knockout
318 resurgent
319 pediments
320 skyscrapers
321 treatments
322 polio
323 flashbulbs
324 empower
325 rounding
326 pervasive
327 humped
328 oxymora
329 freebie
330 passageway
331 barfing
332 motorists
333 triglycerides
334 Mayans
335 stopped
336 kidnapper
337 pensioning
338 foreclosures
339 Yankees
340 manifestoing
341 predictor
342 Delawares
343 librettos
344 panoply
345 angstroms
346 jodhpurs
347 backpedal
348 sugars
349 preclude
350 unravelling
351 Lilliput
352 motivator
353 enslavement
354 pencilling
355 flukey
356 amoral
357 depository
358 unemotional
359 stumpy
360 cartons
361 gal
362 ignitions
363 malingered
364 spotlighted
365 photographic
366 abnegated
367 dashing
368 atrocious
369 inanities
370 derricks
371 mountaineer
372 inseminate
373 sacrosanct
374 modernize
375 specializations
376 obliging
377 heckles
378 baccalaureates
379 bluebirds
380 lengthiest
381 octets
382 physiotherapist
383 disorganizing
384 toffees
385 unfurling
386 abnegate
387 bathrobe
388 socked
389 crepe
390 polkas
391 overwriting
392 punned
393 platoons
394 infrared
395 ensuring
396 decimate
397 baggiest
398 plungers
399 trampolining
400 centigram
401 Topsy
402 epochal
403 boogies
404 showrooms
405 pianofortes
406 Orphic
407 logbooks
408 amphibious
409 rapprochements
410 terms
411 Kalmyk
412 petering
413 geocentric
414 stills
415 ethnologist
416 exec
417 flairs
418 likableness
419 rods
420 melange
421 graduated
422 ante
423 voluminously
424 impaled
425 cognacs
426 yups
427 comfiest
428 strychnine
429 subsoiled
430 conics
431 Salish
432 windsocks
433 rutabaga
434 vacuumed
435 maestri
436 podiatrist
437 restructured
438 metrically
439 motorcade
440 zipping
441 unmoral
442 electioneered
443 minibikes
444 trillion
445 sudsier
446 actuator
447 acing
448 masochism
449 softeners
450 cocksucker
451 brig
452 verbs
453 buccaneer
454 confessed
455 filibustered
456 rearmed
457 melodramatics
458 swivelled
459 veggies
460 monochrome
461 hellos
462 escalators
463 Seyfert
464 bushwhack
465 encapsulation
466 combining
467 realists
468 playgrounds
469 teenage
470 glandular
471 tot
472 cyclical
473 tinsmith
474 commitment
475 undersells
476 orthopaedics
477 yardstick
478 Vivian
479 peppy
480 swatted
481 earlobes
482 snapshots
483 nitpicker
484 unities
485 depressants
486 briefing
487 halo
488 watermarking
489 electronics
490 inadequates
491 ghosted
492 rapscallions
493 snorkeler
494 percentages
495 relapsing
496 facet
497 inconsistently
498 takeout
499 acidify
500 password
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''
{|class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
!word
!date
!class
|-
|monsignor||align="right"|1607||C
|-
|productive||align="right"|1612||C
|-
|alertly||align="right"|1618||C
|-
|inconsistent||align="right"|1620||C
|-
|numerical||align="right"|1628||C
|-
|interlock||align="right"|1632||C
|-
|platoons||align="right"|1637||C
|-
|forevermore||align="right"|1641||C
|-
|identification||align="right"|1644||C
|-
|untenable||align="right"|1647||C
|-
|reversible||align="right"|1648||C
|-
|authentication||align="right"|1652||C
|-
|monotheistic||align="right"|1660||C
|-
|constructive||align="right"|1680||C
|-
|alphabetize||align="right"|1691||C
|-
|misconduct||align="right"|1705||C
|-
|propagandists||align="right"|1718||C
|-
|revelations||align="right"|1729||C
|-
|guaranteed||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|cohesiveness||align="right"|1731||C
|-
|systematizing||align="right"|1767||C
|-
|letdown||align="right"|1768||C
|-
|dissident||align="right"|1769||C
|-
|diagramming||align="right"|1785||C
|-
|backhanded||align="right"|1800||C
|-
|autocratically||align="right"|1823||C
|-
|socialistic||align="right"|1827||C
|-
|Mormonisms||align="right"|1830||C
|-
|westernize||align="right"|1837||C
|-
|trademarks||align="right"|1838||C
|-
|propagandized||align="right"|1844||C
|-
|graffito||align="right"|1851||C
|-
|Americans||align="right"|1855||C
|-
|optimize||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|outdistancing||align="right"|1857||C
|-
|rogues||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|birthrates||align="right"|1859||C
|-
|slob||align="right"|1861||C
|-
|quantifier||align="right"|1876||C
|-
|implode||align="right"|1881||C
|-
|housemother||align="right"|1882||C
|-
|scantier||align="right"|1600||
|-
|sierras||align="right"|1600||
|-
|arena||align="right"|1600||
|-
|toddled||align="right"|1600||
|-
|eventful||align="right"|1600||
|-
|catheter||align="right"|1601||
|-
|primarily||align="right"|1601||
|-
|labeling||align="right"|1601||
|-
|copings||align="right"|1601||
|-
|Pooh||align="right"|1602||
|-
|respectively||align="right"|1602||
|-
|embroiling||align="right"|1603||
|-
|haloes||align="right"|1603||
|-
|Iliad||align="right"|1603||
|-
|enthusiasm||align="right"|1603||
|-
|dragoons||align="right"|1604||
|-
|promised||align="right"|1604||
|-
|recollecting||align="right"|1604||
|-
|stentorian||align="right"|1605||
|-
|rivaling||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impregnates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|touchy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|impassive||align="right"|1605||
|-
|immediacy||align="right"|1605||
|-
|literary||align="right"|1605||
|-
|animosities||align="right"|1605||
|-
|volatile||align="right"|1605||
|-
|vegetates||align="right"|1605||
|-
|acclaiming||align="right"|1606||
|-
|onlooker||align="right"|1606||
|-
|sides||align="right"|1606||
|-
|wisher||align="right"|1607||
|-
|melancholia||align="right"|1607||
|-
|tab||align="right"|1607||
|-
|typical||align="right"|1609||
|-
|casuist||align="right"|1609||
|-
|bucolic||align="right"|1609||
|-
|footfalls||align="right"|1610||
|-
|bison||align="right"|1611||
|-
|lambing||align="right"|1611||
|-
|ticketed||align="right"|1611||
|-
|incompatibilities||align="right"|1611||
|-
|demonstrators||align="right"|1611||
|-
|reproduces||align="right"|1611||
|-
|longish||align="right"|1611||
|-
|amalgamations||align="right"|1612||
|-
|bailing||align="right"|1613||
|-
|caste||align="right"|1613||
|-
|convulses||align="right"|1614||
|-
|abscess||align="right"|1615||
|-
|valise||align="right"|1615||
|-
|cult||align="right"|1617||
|-
|hesitancy||align="right"|1617||
|-
|drill||align="right"|1619||
|-
|blotchy||align="right"|1619||
|-
|urban||align="right"|1619||
|-
|appositeness||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingratiated||align="right"|1621||
|-
|ingrate||align="right"|1622||
|-
|diplomata||align="right"|1622||
|-
|exporters||align="right"|1623||
|-
|drolly||align="right"|1623||
|-
|adrift||align="right"|1624||
|-
|powwow||align="right"|1624||
|-
|oaf||align="right"|1625||
|-
|preconceptions||align="right"|1625||
|-
|ruse||align="right"|1625||
|-
|abominating||align="right"|1628||
|-
|dodo||align="right"|1628||
|-
|discriminated||align="right"|1628||
|-
|biassing||align="right"|1628||
|-
|enslaved||align="right"|1628||
|-
|backwaters||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromic||align="right"|1629||
|-
|palindromes||align="right"|1629||
|-
|tussles||align="right"|1629||
|-
|correspondents||align="right"|1630||
|-
|underrates||align="right"|1632||
|-
|underrate||align="right"|1632||
|-
|characterized||align="right"|1633||
|-
|etcher||align="right"|1634||
|-
|labium||align="right"|1634||
|-
|fluctuates||align="right"|1634||
|-
|morocco||align="right"|1634||
|-
|circumnavigated||align="right"|1634||
|-
|Anglican||align="right"|1635||
|-
|graphically||align="right"|1637||
|-
|millenniums||align="right"|1638||
|-
|domesticating||align="right"|1639||
|-
|pharmaceutical||align="right"|1640||
|-
|onus||align="right"|1640||
|-
|feints||align="right"|1644||
|-
|scavenge||align="right"|1644||
|-
|malls||align="right"|1644||
|-
|salaciously||align="right"|1645||
|-
|additional||align="right"|1646||
|-
|nonuser||align="right"|1646||
|-
|predisposing||align="right"|1646||
|-
|temperamentally||align="right"|1646||
|-
|invigorate||align="right"|1646||
|-
|protuberances||align="right"|1646||
|-
|disinclines||align="right"|1647||
|-
|castanet||align="right"|1647||
|-
|piloting||align="right"|1649||
|-
|leniently||align="right"|1652||
|-
|melange||align="right"|1653||
|-
|dialling||align="right"|1653||
|-
|naively||align="right"|1654||
|-
|siesta||align="right"|1655||
|-
|collectives||align="right"|1655||
|-
|quibbles||align="right"|1656||
|-
|dawdler||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmologies||align="right"|1656||
|-
|cosmology||align="right"|1656||
|-
|morbid||align="right"|1656||
|-
|inconvenienced||align="right"|1656||
|-
|numerating||align="right"|1657||
|-
|incapacitate||align="right"|1657||
|-
|overwrite||align="right"|1658||
|-
|horrendous||align="right"|1659||
|-
|tableau||align="right"|1660||
|-
|derisively||align="right"|1662||
|-
|disk||align="right"|1664||
|-
|diverging||align="right"|1665||
|-
|rotundity||align="right"|1665||
|-
|cultivators||align="right"|1665||
|-
|maroon||align="right"|1666||
|-
|stunning||align="right"|1667||
|-
|interleave||align="right"|1668||
|-
|globes||align="right"|1668||
|-
|hick||align="right"|1669||
|-
|realty||align="right"|1670||
|-
|belated||align="right"|1670||
|-
|punning||align="right"|1670||
|-
|haphazardly||align="right"|1671||
|-
|wader||align="right"|1673||
|-
|resilient||align="right"|1674||
|-
|auk||align="right"|1674||
|-
|priggish||align="right"|1676||
|-
|bungalow||align="right"|1676||
|-
|masqueraded||align="right"|1677||
|-
|configuring||align="right"|1677||
|-
|masterstroke||align="right"|1679||
|-
|yaws||align="right"|1679||
|-
|ganglions||align="right"|1681||
|-
|kidnaps||align="right"|1682||
|-
|shivery||align="right"|1683||
|-
|whaler||align="right"|1684||
|-
|bewilder||align="right"|1684||
|-
|roughshod||align="right"|1688||
|-
|bluebird||align="right"|1688||
|-
|toothbrushes||align="right"|1690||
|-
|romance||align="right"|1690||
|-
|adeptness||align="right"|1691||
|-
|dowsing||align="right"|1691||
|-
|processioned||align="right"|1691||
|-
|missioned||align="right"|1692||
|-
|vessels||align="right"|1694||
|-
|flabbiness||align="right"|1694||
|-
|penmanship||align="right"|1695||
|-
|Ojibwa||align="right"|1700||
|-
|actualized||align="right"|1701||
|-
|established||align="right"|1702||
|-
|copped||align="right"|1704||
|-
|liability||align="right"|1705||
|-
|sniggers||align="right"|1706||
|-
|dyspeptic||align="right"|1706||
|-
|crunch||align="right"|1706||
|-
|hibiscuses||align="right"|1706||
|-
|stencil||align="right"|1707||
|-
|quadruplet||align="right"|1709||
|-
|primness||align="right"|1709||
|-
|stocks||align="right"|1709||
|-
|leaseholds||align="right"|1710||
|-
|rheumatic||align="right"|1711||
|-
|papilla||align="right"|1713||
|-
|presentiments||align="right"|1714||
|-
|tantrum||align="right"|1714||
|-
|needling||align="right"|1715||
|-
|impersonating||align="right"|1715||
|-
|settees||align="right"|1716||
|-
|hustling||align="right"|1720||
|-
|unassuming||align="right"|1722||
|-
|Houyhnhnm||align="right"|1726||
|-
|knotholes||align="right"|1726||
|-
|Lilliput||align="right"|1726||
|-
|soporifics||align="right"|1727||
|-
|Shinto||align="right"|1727||
|-
|bludgeons||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pillboxes||align="right"|1730||
|-
|pantheistic||align="right"|1732||
|-
|vampires||align="right"|1732||
|-
|palaver||align="right"|1735||
|-
|Stilton||align="right"|1736||
|-
|incriminates||align="right"|1736||
|-
|philanders||align="right"|1737||
|-
|exiled||align="right"|1737||
|-
|coterie||align="right"|1738||
|-
|cantaloupe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|wham||align="right"|1739||
|-
|swipe||align="right"|1739||
|-
|icings||align="right"|1740||
|-
|segueing||align="right"|1740||
|-
|insulates||align="right"|1741||
|-
|flatiron||align="right"|1743||
|-
|uncharacteristic||align="right"|1748||
|-
|cornmeal||align="right"|1749||
|-
|develop||align="right"|1750||
|-
|spindling||align="right"|1750||
|-
|measurements||align="right"|1751||
|-
|pompon||align="right"|1751||
|-
|fanciers||align="right"|1751||
|-
|lumberyard||align="right"|1753||
|-
|riffles||align="right"|1754||
|-
|personification||align="right"|1755||
|-
|mesquites||align="right"|1759||
|-
|maniacs||align="right"|1763||
|-
|pronouncing||align="right"|1764||
|-
|frivolity||align="right"|1764||
|-
|aboriginals||align="right"|1767||
|-
|Afghans||align="right"|1767||
|-
|paws||align="right"|1769||
|-
|mynas||align="right"|1769||
|-
|modernization||align="right"|1770||
|-
|coagulants||align="right"|1770||
|-
|hairpin||align="right"|1771||
|-
|fagged||align="right"|1772||
|-
|Ta||align="right"|1772||
|-
|propertied||align="right"|1772||
|-
|fagging||align="right"|1772||
|-
|pups||align="right"|1773||
|-
|gibbon||align="right"|1774||
|-
|gecko||align="right"|1774||
|-
|passé||align="right"|1775||
|-
|clannish||align="right"|1776||
|-
|gnu||align="right"|1777||
|-
|gasses||align="right"|1779||
|-
|balalaika||align="right"|1780||
|-
|congressman||align="right"|1780||
|-
|fumigate||align="right"|1781||
|-
|varying||align="right"|1781||
|-
|minutiae||align="right"|1782||
|-
|effervesce||align="right"|1784||
|-
|bangle||align="right"|1787||
|-
|letups||align="right"|1787||
|-
|thyroids||align="right"|1787||
|-
|loots||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Hollands||align="right"|1788||
|-
|Dolly||align="right"|1790||
|-
|weakfish||align="right"|1791||
|-
|rutabagas||align="right"|1791||
|-
|equalizer||align="right"|1792||
|-
|steeplechase||align="right"|1793||
|-
|daredevils||align="right"|1794||
|-
|commentated||align="right"|1794||
|-
|embeds||align="right"|1794||
|-
|telegraphy||align="right"|1795||
|-
|soled||align="right"|1795||
|-
|allover||align="right"|1796||
|-
|titanium||align="right"|1796||
|-
|quizzically||align="right"|1797||
|-
|stashes||align="right"|1797||
|-
|kilogram||align="right"|1797||
|-
|belittled||align="right"|1797||
|-
|Mon||align="right"|1798||
|-
|bibliographies||align="right"|1802||
|-
|fezes||align="right"|1803||
|-
|dressmaking||align="right"|1803||
|-
|condoned||align="right"|1805||
|-
|coarsening||align="right"|1805||
|-
|gumbos||align="right"|1805||
|-
|peewee||align="right"|1806||
|-
|lassos||align="right"|1807||
|-
|Pueblos||align="right"|1808||
|-
|blinder||align="right"|1809||
|-
|eddied||align="right"|1810||
|-
|scurrying||align="right"|1810||
|-
|milliliter||align="right"|1810||
|-
|miffed||align="right"|1811||
|-
|quintet||align="right"|1811||
|-
|aluminum||align="right"|1812||
|-
|shawling||align="right"|1812||
|-
|tossup||align="right"|1812||
|-
|opalescent||align="right"|1813||
|-
|vocalic||align="right"|1814||
|-
|Swahili||align="right"|1814||
|-
|nocturnes||align="right"|1814||
|-
|underpaying||align="right"|1817||
|-
|diarist||align="right"|1818||
|-
|intellectualizes||align="right"|1819||
|-
|stethoscope||align="right"|1820||
|-
|bloodstain||align="right"|1820||
|-
|squawk||align="right"|1821||
|-
|suffragist||align="right"|1822||
|-
|caffeine||align="right"|1823||
|-
|flysheet||align="right"|1825||
|-
|augmented||align="right"|1825||
|-
|subway||align="right"|1825||
|-
|crotchety||align="right"|1825||
|-
|pullout||align="right"|1825||
|-
|beadier||align="right"|1826||
|-
|mammal||align="right"|1826||
|-
|chaffed||align="right"|1827||
|-
|clinics||align="right"|1827||
|-
|recruitment||align="right"|1828||
|-
|mas||align="right"|1829||
|-
|mesmerizing||align="right"|1829||
|-
|constitutionals||align="right"|1829||
|-
|cahoots||align="right"|1829||
|-
|homeopathic||align="right"|1830||
|-
|pterodactyl||align="right"|1830||
|-
|cadres||align="right"|1830||
|-
|hex||align="right"|1830||
|-
|chipmunks||align="right"|1832||
|-
|Horus||align="right"|1832||
|-
|toothpastes||align="right"|1832||
|-
|cottonmouths||align="right"|1832||
|-
|underplays||align="right"|1833||
|-
|dorsals||align="right"|1834||
|-
|cetaceans||align="right"|1835||
|-
|wholeheartedly||align="right"|1836||
|-
|creepily||align="right"|1836||
|-
|étude||align="right"|1837||
|-
|Confucianism||align="right"|1837||
|-
|scatting||align="right"|1838||
|-
|smokestacks||align="right"|1838||
|-
|pretzel||align="right"|1838||
|-
|upheaval||align="right"|1838||
|-
|Bunker||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mushier||align="right"|1839||
|-
|bushings||align="right"|1839||
|-
|OK||align="right"|1839||
|-
|mesa||align="right"|1840||
|-
|wastrel||align="right"|1841||
|-
|pyromaniac||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Assam||align="right"|1842||
|-
|Spitz||align="right"|1842||
|-
|wisteria||align="right"|1842||
|-
|cubbyhole||align="right"|1842||
|-
|kinkiest||align="right"|1844||
|-
|Limoges||align="right"|1844||
|-
|taillights||align="right"|1844||
|-
|subgroups||align="right"|1845||
|-
|garnisheeing||align="right"|1846||
|-
|Joe||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tobogganed||align="right"|1846||
|-
|snobby||align="right"|1846||
|-
|strapless||align="right"|1846||
|-
|cheekily||align="right"|1846||
|-
|orgiastic||align="right"|1846||
|-
|funnest||align="right"|1846||
|-
|tactlessness||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tailcoats||align="right"|1847||
|-
|gynecologists||align="right"|1847||
|-
|cartography||align="right"|1847||
|-
|tenderfeet||align="right"|1849||
|-
|laterals||align="right"|1851||
|-
|educations||align="right"|1851||
|-
|trunks||align="right"|1851||
|-
|hangars||align="right"|1852||
|-
|colloids||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimits||align="right"|1852||
|-
|delimited||align="right"|1852||
|-
|davenport||align="right"|1853||
|-
|Russians||align="right"|1854||
|-
|abnormality||align="right"|1854||
|-
|rainfall||align="right"|1854||
|-
|Brewer||align="right"|1855||
|-
|hazings||align="right"|1855||
|-
|vendetta||align="right"|1855||
|-
|pullouts||align="right"|1855||
|-
|warlords||align="right"|1856||
|-
|seismographs||align="right"|1858||
|-
|interbreeding||align="right"|1859||
|-
|emulsification||align="right"|1859||
|-
|pub||align="right"|1859||
|-
|soulfulness||align="right"|1860||
|-
|Darwinian||align="right"|1860||
|-
|flautist||align="right"|1860||
|-
|pipelines||align="right"|1860||
|-
|ewe||align="right"|1861||
|-
|bellboy||align="right"|1861||
|-
|trapezes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|ewes||align="right"|1861||
|-
|railroading||align="right"|1862||
|-
|isomorphic||align="right"|1862||
|-
|canapé||align="right"|1863||
|-
|columns||align="right"|1863||
|-
|octets||align="right"|1864||
|-
|coffeecakes||align="right"|1865||
|-
|goulash||align="right"|1866||
|-
|sudsier||align="right"|1866||
|-
|maverick||align="right"|1867||
|-
|safaris||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rangier||align="right"|1868||
|-
|mailbox||align="right"|1868||
|-
|rotting||align="right"|1870||
|-
|saprophyte||align="right"|1870||
|-
|agenda||align="right"|1871||
|-
|roomers||align="right"|1871||
|-
|masterminds||align="right"|1872||
|-
|deforest||align="right"|1874||
|-
|spaghetti||align="right"|1874||
|-
|intercollegiate||align="right"|1874||
|-
|Helicon||align="right"|1875||
|-
|dermatitis||align="right"|1876||
|-
|semiprivate||align="right"|1876||
|-
|toniest||align="right"|1877||
|-
|supplies||align="right"|1878||
|-
|quirking||align="right"|1878||
|-
|wagged||align="right"|1879||
|-
|onionskin||align="right"|1879||
|-
|bacillus||align="right"|1879||
|-
|clobber||align="right"|1879||
|-
|steamrollered||align="right"|1879||
|-
|alumna||align="right"|1879||
|-
|locoweed||align="right"|1879||
|-
|toeholds||align="right"|1880||
|-
|paternalism||align="right"|1881||
|-
|adrenals||align="right"|1882||
|-
|syndicating||align="right"|1882||
|-
|winery||align="right"|1882||
|-
|interface||align="right"|1882||
|-
|infantryman||align="right"|1883||
|-
|worldlier||align="right"|1883||
|-
|shyest||align="right"|1884||
|-
|showdowns||align="right"|1884||
|-
|oilfield||align="right"|1884||
|-
|words||align="right"|1884||
|-
|fixating||align="right"|1885||
|-
|micron||align="right"|1885||
|-
|stagehand||align="right"|1885||
|-
|contraceptives||align="right"|1886||
|-
|sensitization||align="right"|1887||
|-
|parachutists||align="right"|1888||
|-
|sandblaster||align="right"|1888||
|-
|erogenous||align="right"|1889||
|-
|lactating||align="right"|1889||
|-
|psychopathics||align="right"|1890||
|-
|reactor||align="right"|1890||
|-
|unsnaps||align="right"|1892||
|-
|decolletes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|inbound||align="right"|1894||
|-
|marihuana||align="right"|1894||
|-
|encapsulated||align="right"|1894||
|-
|erythrocytes||align="right"|1894||
|-
|sequinned||align="right"|1894||
|-
|defrosted||align="right"|1895||
|-
|sacks||align="right"|1895||
|-
|phonemes||align="right"|1896||
|-
|mescaline||align="right"|1896||
|-
|ions||align="right"|1896||
|-
|midyear||align="right"|1896||
|-
|redwoods||align="right"|1897||
|-
|happenstances||align="right"|1897||
|-
|sandhog||align="right"|1897||
|-
|eggs||align="right"|1898||
|-
|taxicab||align="right"|1899||
|-
|concoction||align="right"|1675||
|}
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
{|class="wikitable"
!
!16s
!17s
!18s
!Σ
|-
!conservative words
|15||9||17||41
|-
!all words
|176||114||210||500
|-
!percentage of conservative words
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.

::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "''best''" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

== Destruction of words ==

Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.

Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.

Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==

For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of
the conservative words:

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!claimed
|20||40||80||160||13
|-
!recount
|20||40||81||150||14
|}

An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.

{|class="wikitable"
!century
!17th
!18th
!19th
!20th
!21st
|-
!pre Segway
|14||28||56||112||6
|-
!post Segway
|15||28||56||124||6
|-
!my count
|15||29||57||114||6
|}

How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.

But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !

After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...

So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== Too Good to be True ==

Imagine the hypothesis: There are as many male writers as there are female
ones.

To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,
the hypothesis is true.

But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we
reach round 300?

Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being
finished, but we can't conclude anything!

Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.

Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1

So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.

And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.

When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!

Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.

Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating
''best conservative new words''.

At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be bigger than for each other combination,
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields odds of
1:2,000,000.

Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not
believable, and don't support your claims made in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

: Disbelief of something because it is "too good to be true" is not a strong argument against it. Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example. Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.

: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil. Of course it is not a random process. That would be silly. But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn. We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells. Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

== A summary with graphs... ==

On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: <blockquote>'''Conservapedia's Law''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. 
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. </blockquote> This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''
<blockquote>''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''</blockquote>

{|
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]
|-
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of ≈ 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]
|-
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]
|-
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]
|}
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.

I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!

{|
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]
|-
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does not show a geometric progression.
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]
|-
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century ≈ 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]
|-
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 conservative words, and a general distribution of the creation of words.
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]
|-
|However, if one maps the percentage of words in - e.g. - a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]
|}

Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:<blockquote>That's a
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I
would have identified as liberal in nature. But very few of these words
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) </blockquote>

I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)
pattern.

Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative. But quantity is no substitute or quality. You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil. Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil. Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about. Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your software to which you want attend?
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them, you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the ''best conservative words''.

::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the "best" conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in "quality" over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

== Decrypt ==

Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the "Bombe"). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.
:: As for "the British are notoriously weak in math": you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so. If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!

::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, "a non-Newtonian fluid". He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Brilliant logic. 17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any. As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact? If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple "web-like" effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story. I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

''" If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):
* Sir Isaac Newton
* Charles Babbage
* Alan Turing
* G.H. Hardy
* Bertrand Russell
* Roger Penrose
* Andrew Wiles
* Arthur Cayley
* William Rowan Hamilton
* George Boole
* Augustus De Morgan
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered "British". Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain. Wiles did his work in the U.S. Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of "mathematician", "great mathematician", and "one of the greatest mathematicians" as if they're all the same thing. We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between "conservative words" and "best conservative words". It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. "mathematician" and "not-mathematician". I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Andy, you stated: "It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman" and "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead. We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not. The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain. Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain. I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?'' How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Andy said "Look at '''any''' list" (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well there you go "Karajou". Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing. See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

(outdent) Well I used the two "ours" you gave me to find some sources.

How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.

Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.

The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.

Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the "Best of the Public" is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.

Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.

Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.

So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view. But we're not going to do it for someone on demand. And there lies the end of the lesson. Hope you learned something about tact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism? Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are! Godspeed to all of you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell). One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)

*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''"modern"'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}

:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.

:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.

:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that "The British are notoriously weak in mathematics". [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==

The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

:"curiouser and curiouser" - for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:

:{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="3"|Field Medalists by Country
|-
!country
!#
!medalist
|-
!USA
|align="right"|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford
|-
!France
|align="right"|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner
|-
!Soviet Union/Russia
|align="right"|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)
|-
!UK
|align="right"|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers
|-
!Japan
|align="right"|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori
|-
!Belgium
|align="right"|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain
|-
!Finland
|align="right"|1||Lars Ahlfors
|-
!Norway
|align="right"|1||Atle Selberg
|-
!Sweden
|align="right"|1||Lars Hörmander
|-
!Italy
|align="right"|1||Enrico Bombieri
|-
!Germany
|align="right"|1||Gerd Faltings
|-
!New Zealand
|align="right"|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones
|-
!Australia
|align="right"|1||Terence Tao
|}

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians. Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this "Field's Medal" anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
::For the record, "Cathy," the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with "this world." For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson "made up the math as he went." As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Connive is too early ==

With an origin date of 1601, "connive" is too early, I think. We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. But "connive" is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

::That would work! It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== New Layer Suggestions ==

These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.

Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent.
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States.
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service.
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .

Any thoughts? "Secularism" and "secular humanism" might provoke some objections, and I know that "isms" raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms. They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)

: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous. My only reservations are with "Yankee", which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and "Populism", which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated. Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction! On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and "Yankee Doodle." The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were "Yanks." I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term. (After all, "Red Stater" is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!) Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as "populist" in the pass. I cheerfully concede your point! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion. I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun ("Yankee") than as an adjective or when used in the plural. Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with "Yankee Doodle" but I suspect when they call someone a "Yankee", it's meant to be an insult. Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of "Yankee" to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

== Suggested Way To Format Page ==

I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly.

As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.

I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

== Additional liberal terms? ==

What about "ethnocentrism" (1905-1910) and "multiculturalism" (1960-1965)? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)

: Superb suggestions. Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)
==Refudiate==
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made "corpse man" a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)

::Perhaps time will tell. The term "Big Bang" was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can "mature" to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Charisma? ==

I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term. It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait. Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.

I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:
::'''literally "a gift from God", charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''
:This nixes the "magic" from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't "magic". [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps "difficult to classify" may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)
==New words added==

Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) & Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?

I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:All your additions look superb except "deference," which I'm not sure is [[conservative]]. Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for "God-fearing").--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote: "giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment & then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)

To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.

I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:

atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.

secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control

To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

: "atheistic" is good. Let's go with that. I didn't see why "patriarchy" was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== "Copacetic" ==

I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

: "Copacetic" is the very satisfactory result of conservative values. It is associated with good and honest living. I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==

Andy, I saw your addition "silent majority" and it made me immediately think of "Moral Majority". [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

:Great suggestion. Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

== Obambulate ==

Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with "Obama", it simply means "to walk around". I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:It is probably as a result of it being mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's show and the liberal reactions to it during the past week. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::What was the reaction? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:14, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Denny, your comment is a valid one, but the modern usage of the term "obambulate" is to criticize the directionless wandering characteristic of liberal leadership. None of the terms in the list should be viewed in a vacuum independent of their usage.

::: Hey, my response used another candidate: "directionless". ''Trying to find its date of origin next ....''--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:35, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Agitprop ==
Sorry if I get the etiquette wrong, first time commenting. I was just wondering if there was a source for Agitprop? I always understood it to be derived from Soviet Russian institutions, so would be quite keen to see the conservative routes of it. Everything I have tried so far has turned up the term as being derived from Russian e.g. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agitprop&searchmode=none , and I would be surprised if the internal machinations of the USSR would come up with something conservative, so would be keen to find out the alternative you uncovered"[[User:JTpldl|JTlpdl]] 09:18, 28 March 2011 (EDT)"

== Page dividing ==

Due to the success of this essay, it's really slow, so can I split it into pages by century of origin? This would allow the page to load faster and be easier to navigate. Any thoughts on the idea? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 20:09, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:I'd like to see it be broken up by century and automatically numbered. I'm not sure that breaking it up into many pages would facilitate more than inconvenience. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:55, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

==Audit==
I'm getting 25,48,100,201,17 as the counts. If so, this wouldn't be the first time I've seen them wrong. As I mentioned above, we should consider breaking the list up by century to help avoid counting errors. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 18:37, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

== Word for 1700's ==
Could belittle be the word we are looking for to perfect the list? It was coined in 1785 by Thomas Jefferson himself, and is certainly a way to describe an action often done by liberals to protect their ideas. [[User:JoshuaL|JoshuaL]] 19:34, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:Joshua, I'm inclined to agree, as Jefferson likely coined the term in response to critics trying to deceptively minimize issues he raised. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 02:07, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

::Not sure "belittle" is conservative. But how about "axiomatic"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:20, 30 April 2011 (EDT)
If you're still looking for an 18th century word, 'nationalist' would fit well - it's a core conservative value, synonymous with 'patriot', the antithesis of 'internationalist', and one of the defining features of the 18th century. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:17, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Liberal creep ==

How do we reconcile this with liberal creep? If language is becoming more conservative, why is opinion and perception becoming more liberal? Do liberals or conservatives dictate the terms of the national conversation? If someone could take a look at the two phenomena and find out what makes one move in one direction and the other in the opposite, it would make a great essay. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 15:05, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
:I've also brought this up for discussion [[Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's_Law#Putting_Conservapedia.27s_Law_in_perspective|here]]. Conservapedia's Law, the observation that conservative insights double over time, is clearly incomplete, perhaps even flawed. I agree that there could be a complex relationship between liberal creep and Conservapedia's Law and it is worth investigating. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 15:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Graph of words over time ==

While I was drawing graphs, I wrote a quick script to generate a graph of the data in this page. [http://static.inky.ws/image/405/image.jpg This graph] shows the growth in conservative terms year-by-year, rather than just per-century. The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow, that's a spectacular graph! Can you give permission for me to include it in the entry page?

:The graph disproves the theory that there were bursts of new words during certain periods. I'll remove that from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
::Please do use the graph as you see fit. I can generate new graphs from the latest data with no trouble at all, so if you'd like it can be updated periodically. I'm currently trying to find a suitably analogous source of data for liberal words/ideas, which would allow comparative analysis. This kind of data is very interesting as it seems to avoid the short-term political cycles which characterize much of popular discourse, focusing on the really significant point of the growth of ideas. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:59, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I posted the graph and your idea is marvelous. However, I don't think the graph is completely accurate: the curve for the actual data should intersect the predicted curve at each turning of the centuries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

:::*Is the green curve really a fit for the data according to Aschlafly's theory? I mean, Jcw says ''the green line is a quadratic curve'' - at best it's a second approximation for the geometric curve...
:::*Personally, I find quite hard to judge the existance of ''bursts'' from a [[cdf]]. Perhaps Jcw could create a histogram - perhaps for decades?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:30, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::You both raise valid points, which hopefully will be answered soon. Andy and August both mention that the x^2 curve isn't a perfect fit - it certainly isn't, and I'm pretty sure a 2^x curve with appropriate constants will fit better; I'm planning to do that tonight. August mentions different ways of representing the data - I'll happily produce a histogram of the data if that'd be interesting, but the reason for plotting it as I have is to produce a curve that I can use for my more grandiose scheme, of which more later. My background is not so much in statistics - although I've done a fair bit of that - but in purer maths, so my thinking is mostly based around the relationships between smooth(-ish) functions. That may not be the best way to deal with these data qua data, but to extract patterns for further, more abstract work, it's ideal. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:43, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::::[http://static.inky.ws/image/412/image.jpg Et voila], a better fit. This is an exponential curve fitted to the same data. Note that it fits much better in the region with the most words, but is a bit out for the earlier period where there are fewer words in the list. This is because we can more easily find suitable words from more recent periods, so naturally the pattern is most exact there. No doubt if we could go through a large, representative corpus and extract words uniformly, it would fit nicely all the way along. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:25, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::'''@Aschlafly: ''' Could you recount the words? My count gave me 26-51-103-210-18 (Sum: 408) instead of 26-52-103-208-18 (Sum: 407). Perhaps a fourth column for the century (or even better, the decade) could be added? That would make it much easier to keep track of the numbers!

:::::'''@Jcw: ''' I don't think that your ''better fit'' is the function which Aschlafly has in mind: it should be <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>, where ''#words'' is the number of words created before 2000, i.e., 390. This function touches/intersects the empirical cdf at the turn of each century, a fact which betrays the biased method of looking for these words.

:::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:12, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::August, so you've constructed a function which you claim 'betrays the biased method of looking for these words'? I'd be interested to see a more thorough explanation of that point. Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:42, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::::August, I have an open mind about this. I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there. But please explain if you think that is in error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

I hope we can agree on the function ''Ftheo'' - it should be uncontroversial:

*one layer exists from 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 words, i.e., 20, 21,22 and 23
*the partial sums are 1 - 3 - 7 - 15, i.e., 21-1, 22-1, 23-1, and 24-1
*so, with the turn of the n-th century, there should be 2n+1-1 words
*for K layers, the number is K * (2n+1-1). Each layer has 15 words, thus, if there are '''N''' feasible words, the number of layers is '''N'''/15
*now adjust for years instead of centuries, and don't start with the first, but with the 17th, and you get the formula <math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>.

'''@jcw: ''' ''Another editor has attempted a similar argument above, but without success.'' I read the sections above, and I ''was'' convinced by the argument.

'''@Aschlafly:''' ''I don't see how we could so easily find [[conservative]] words that double by century if the underlying pattern were not there.'' The effects of the miscount ([[Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words#PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY]]) have shown that you are able to match any pattern you were looking for.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:11, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

August's contrary theory aside, here's an interesting consequence of this trend: [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg this graph] shows the curve from above in green, an hypothetical linear growth of liberalism ([liberal creep], in blue) and the effect of the latter on the former (in red). Note how the red line - the net effect of liberal and conservative ideas - falls for a while, reaching a minimum in the twentieth century before shooting up. This is because the exponential growth of conservatism is slower at first that the linear growth of liberalism, but gets very much faster later on, easily overtaking the linear function and increasing to infinity. Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:41, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

:That's remarkably insightful. In other words, the combination of linear [[liberal creep]] and the geometric growth rate of [[Best New Conservative Words]] results in a liberal trend for a while (until the [[Great Depression]]), and then a rapidly increasing conservative trend thereafter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::Exactly. The precise shape of the final curve depends on the values assumed for the [[liberal creep]] line, but any reasonable values give a final curve with much the same shape. It agrees rather remarkably with the observed facts, especially as nothing in the calculations refers to historical events at all. Purely linguistic inputs produce an undeniably historical result, demonstrating the power of language very clearly. As ever, feel free to use the graph however you please. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:48, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

::: I am skeptical that the complexities of human society and political philosophies can be summed up simply as an exponential function minus a linear function. What evidence is there that this [[liberal creep]] is linear? How is that even quantified? Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions, in order to make it [[falsifiable]] and thus scientific? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:09, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions. I'll consider them (as others probably will also) and reply after some thought.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:15, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Good questions indeed. The immediate answer is 'no': of course all the complexities of human society can't be summed up as simply as this. Quantifying complex abstract phenomena is a very rough business, most especially on a short timescale. The goal of my graphs isn't to present concrete mathematical laws, or anything like them, but just to illustrate a conceptual relationship using mathematics.
:::: To answer your specific questions:
:::: * 'how is that even quantified?': Crudely and by guesswork, like many first attempts in all sciences, especially those relating to human activity. The crude guess is justified by the answer to:
:::: * 'Does this hypothesis make any specific predictions...': In one way, the hypothesis is supported by the same kind of evidence as is used to defend evolution - the hypothesis I've produced now gives results which agree with events in the past. As we all agree, that's not the best kind of evidence, but in this case it's rather compelling. Secondly, it does make concrete predictions - indeed, it makes an inescapable prediction which can't be fudged or avoided - the 'conservatism' curve increases very rapidly to infinity, rather than going up and down or settling into a steady state. This suggests a discontinuity in the future, where the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I think we'd recognize it if we saw it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:49, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: In furtherance of Jcw's remarks, it is perhaps easier to study the development of language and politics, which are closely related to each other, than it is to study and predict ... the weather. Nobody had a problem with [[Al Gore]] trying to predict the weather, so why object when a simpler task is undertaken?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:01, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::: @Jcw How specifically does your graph "agree with events in the past"? Also, the claim that "the level of conservatism rises to something quite outside our experience" is not a specific prediction. I'm not even sure what that means. Finally, in [http://static.inky.ws/image/421/image.jpg your graph] what does the y-axis represent? Words? Aschlafly above links the exponential function to the growth of conservative terms. If so, why is [[liberal creep]] linear? Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe this? Looking at [[Essay:New_Liberal_Terms|liberal terms]] by century it seems like liberal terms are also growing exponentially, even though the article claims they don't grow "geometrically" and are "heavily influenced by culture". In any case, it doesn't look linear. Wouldn't the diminishing intelligence of humans mean liberal terms would be growing quickly?
:::::: @Aschlafly Weather and climate are distinct things. I don't think anyone believes Al Gore is a climate scientist qualified to make scientific predictions, only a spokesman. Many people do have a problem with him and the whole idea of climate change.
:::::: Also, human beings are extremely complicated and it isn't obvious to me that accurately predicting and quantifying the political philosophy of a complex society is much simpler than either meteorology or climatology. Even if the development of politics and language are closely related (I'm not sure they are), why would studying them be necessarily be a simpler task than studying climates?--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:39, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Matthew: now you're asking questions that have already been answered or are clear from the context. I note that your edits on this site are almost exclusively to talk pages; may we assume that you are here simply to argue rather than to contribute? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

The interesting question is, what would an (effectively) infinite level of conservatism look like? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the US to answer that: over here 'conservatism' looks a great deal like US liberalism... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

: One characteristic of infinite conservatism might be when it is impossible to notice a difference in the level of service and attitude between government and a perfectly competitive industry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:18, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:: In a perfectly conservative society, would there be any need for government as we now know it? I suppose there are limits to how conservative a society can be in a fallen world... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:52, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::Conservatives aren't [[libertarian]]s or [[anarchist]]s, so a '''''limited''''' government would exist ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:48, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: I'm sorry, I still don't understand what 'infinite conservatism' means. Perhaps an article detailing how conservatism can be quantified and what happens in the limit as it approaches infinity would help. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:32, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: That's an interesting idea, Matthew. I think that in the US conservatism is closely correlated with Evangelical Christianity, which is not at all the case here in the UK, where our conservatives are more likely to belong to the Church of England - a decidedly liberal institution by US standards. Andy's suggestion above is concise, but if you think about it it's a very acute description of a hypothetical perfectly conservative government. I shudder to think what a perfectly liberal government would be like. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:33, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Jcw, your description of US conservatism compared with the UK is interesting, and I've thought about it. While certainly there are more evangelicals here than there, not all are conservative. Moreover, the cause-and-effect is less than clear: does the conservative nature of America allow evangelicalism to develop more fully than in a liberal nation? If so, there still remains an underlying mystery of why America is more conservative than the UK.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, a very interesting question. Our two nations have a great deal of shared history, but today are vastly different in fundamental ways. I think the Reformation is particularly important in this context - the UK experienced it directly, while the nascent US only experienced the aftereffects; the US was never a Catholic nation in the Mediaeval sense. Another - perhaps related - aspect is the persistence of monarchy in the UK compared to its outright rejection by the US. There's a lot to be said on this topic, so I'll begin an essay with some of my thoughts and see how it compares with a US view. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:39, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Please do start an essay on this, hopefully here so that I can contribute to it too! Religious differences between the US and the UK are surely part of the explanation for the political differences, but I think there is more to it than that. [[Federalism]], for example, prevents [[liberals]] from gaining control over the US, while that protection does not exist in the UK. I will say this: the UK media is much more free with respect to American politics than the American press is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw: ''' What are the parameters of your interpolating function? And how did you calculate them? Could you also display:

:<math>F_{theo}(t) = \frac{\#words }{15}</math><math>(2^{\frac{t-1599}{100}}-1)</math>

And why not use these paramaters - they are the direct result of applying Aschlafly's rule of doubling-by-century...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:08, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page. If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions, but you seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here, as if you're deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it. The amount of time and attention you're willing to give to criticizing other people's ideas is remarkable. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

: Well put, Jcw. Actually, the entries begin with the year 1612, after the publication of the [[KJV]] and the completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works. So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

'''@Jcw:''' ''August, if you'd like to do those calculations, please feel free - the data isn't kept secret, it's right there on the page.'' I can't reproduce your calculations as there is not enough data: You say that it is a fit, but you don't explain how you fitted it:
::#How did you treat words like ''atheistic'' (1625-1635), ''deadweight loss'' (1930s) and ''design by committee'' (before 1958)
::#Which kind of fit did you use? For me, Maximum-Likelihood would be an obvious choice.
::#Which family of functions did you look at? Obviously a*2^x. Why not a*2^x+b?
::#Did you use any weights? Which ones (or why not)?
All these choices result in different interpolating functions. So, which choices did you make and what was your result?

''If you'd like to see another presentation of it, go ahead. I'm very happy to explain things - and to justify my choices! - to well-meaning editors with genuine questions'' Obviously I won't promise ''not'' to criticize your choices. Does this make me a not-well-meaning editor?

''You seem to be on the wrong side of every argument around here'' I seem to be constantly on the other side than you are. Doesn't make my side always wrong!

'''@Aschlafly: ''' ''Well put, Jcw.'' Do you condone the policy to share data only with those who you expect not to criticize it? When reading [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]] and its talk page, I got quite another impression!

''So August's date in his exponent appears wrong, but your graph is correct in show an intersection with the x-axis over a decade after 1600'' Jcw's graph (the green line!) doesn't intersect the x-axis at ~1610. I doubt that it intersects the x-axis at all! The red line shows the empirical data, so of course it begins at 1612 with the first word found - though ''obambulate'' (1600) is the oldest word in the table, and seems to be always counted in the ''perfect counts''. OTOH, the graph which I proposed intersects the x-axis at the turn of the 16th century, and crosses the empirical curve at the turn of each century (whether you shift the function by 1599 or 1600 is just a matter of taste...).

== Americanadians ==

How about 'Americanadians'? I've observed many good Americans being influenced by the blatant propaganda of our socialist neighbors, and starting to espouse their flawed line of thought. What do others think? Let me know.

== Claptrap ==

I suggest "claptrap." I'm surprised it's not on the list already. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 00:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:Superb suggestion! I'll add it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:45, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

::It was already on the list. I added an 1800s term instead.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:10, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== free speech ==

Perhaps I simply fail to understand the context you provided, but is free speech really a "conservative word?" Terms like "political correctness" and "obamacare" are undeniably conservative (to the point where liberals won't use them), but free speech is at best non-partisan, and at worst (I am attempting to write from a conservative viewpoint- I may fail miserably at this) a term co-opted by liberals to justify their perversions and excesses. </attempt to write from conservative viewpoint>--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 01:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:You raise a valid point. But isn't it the conservatives who protect, for example, corporate and many other types of expenditures in elections as "free speech"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:28, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed, you are correct. But I think it's fair to say now that it is a word used by conservatives as well as liberals to represent their agendas. I do not know how this factors into this particular list--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:13, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

:::I'll continue to think about your valid criticism. Maybe I can search Supreme Court opinions and see who is using the term "free speech" most. I don't think [[liberals]] are using it as much as [[conservatives]] are today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Decades ==

I added a column for the decades (rather than for the centuries). I hope this will help to keep the count of the words up-to-date.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:05, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure how that will help - surely the decade is already contained in the 'year' column? If you'd like a more accurate count, I suggest doing what I do - use a perl script to parse the wikitext and print out whatever information you want. To me the decade column looks annoyingly redundant, but perhaps I've missed something... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::I wanted to facilitate the count: as some of the dates are not purely numeric (1950s, before 1958, 1625-1635), it's hard to sort the table by the column ''date''. If there is a purely numeric column, the table can be easily copied into a spreadsheet and recounted even by those who don't know anything about regular expressions.

::If you have a script, please use it to keep an eye on the count: I'm surprised that you didn't spot the miscount earlier on.

::I'll add the column for the decades again, this time at the last place. This should be more pleasing...

::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:07, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I don't know how to upload a picture, so here is an ascii-graphic for the distribution by decades:

*1600: *
*1610: ****
*1620: *****
*1630: *
*1640: ******
*1650: ****
*1660: **
*1670:
*1680: **
*1690: *
*1700: *
*1710: ***
*1720: *****
*1730: ****
*1740: ****
*1750: *****
*1760: ******
*1770: ******
*1780: ********
*1790: *********
*1800: ********
*1810: *********
*1820: ***************
*1830: ***************
*1840: *********
*1850: **********
*1860: **********
*1870: *******
*1880: ************
*1890: **********
*1900: ***********************
*1910: ***********************
*1920: **********************
*1930: *******************
*1940: ***************************
*1950: **************************
*1960: *************************
*1970: ****************
*1980: **********************
*1990: ******
*2000: ***************
*2010: ***

1820/1830,1900/1910, and 1940/1950 seem to be decades in which significantly more conservative terms were created than one would have expected... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:15, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggested additions ==

Eurabia - what Europe will become if people don't stand up for themselves.

Islamofascism - repressive muslim shariah regimes/totalitarian islamism.

[[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:01, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

: Go ahead and add if you have some dates of origin, even if only approximate. I hadn't heard of the first one ("Eurabia") before.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Dumpster diving ==

Was 'dumping diving' added because food is not going to waste, or am I misunderstanding why it's conservative? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 09:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:I'll take a stab at it. Conservative words can describe liberal actions. I am not saying dumpster divers are liberal, those poor folks maybe hungry. Dumpster Diving is not limited to food. It's also a method to get trade secrets from companies or dig up dirt against somebody. Most likely, Dumpster Diving is used for deceitful purposes for example gaining a social security number from discarded bills used for the creation of fraudulent IDs. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Great points. This is a list of [[conservative]] terms, often insightful, about activities that may be conservative or liberal, harmful or helpful, or none of the above. Evidently this term was developed by small businessmen to describe an unhelpful activity outside their restaurants and other stores. Dumpster diving may sometimes be the equivalent of recycling or getting a hungry person some food, but in any event '''the term''' is a perfect description of the activity. And once there is a good term for something, then the activity can be understood and addressed better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:39, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::: Good analysis. But is dumpster diving a conservative act? --[[User:GeorgeZ|GeorgeZ]] 15:53, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Read Andy's post. He specifically says that that does not matter. It was created by conservatives. Therefore it is a conservative word. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::Right that it does not matter whether it is a conservative act. In the case of dumpster diving, whether it is ever conservative depends on what the purpose and effect are. It also doesn't matter if a conservative coined it; a liberal can sing a [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs|conservative song]]. The point is whether the insight is conservative. In this case, small businessmen (a conservative line of work) coined the term to criticize how homeless people were digging through their trash.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I see Andy. Thanks for explaining. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:22, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Indeed, one might suggest that liberals have indirectly contributed to the increase in conservative terms by constantly inventing new ways to avoid work and personal responsibility. Conservatives are then, naturally, obligated to develop terms for these behaviors. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== 2000s ==
It's fascinating how the new Conservative words and insights do seem to grow geometrically by century, but I'm curious as to why the 2000s seem to be pretty far behind. We're 11 years in, so you'd expect there to be roughly 40 new words so far, but we've got less than half that many. With the rise of the TEA Party, I'd expect to be much closer. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

: Excellent point. Possible reasons could include that it is too soon to recognize new words in the most recent decade ... or maybe there has been a short-term decline in conservative intellectualism? At any rate, I've been meaning to add the term "Tea Party" itself with its etymology in the last decade!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

::I have to agree with you, Andy. Even though we're in 2011 now, it might be too early to be able to fully appreciate all the new conservative words created last decade. I think "Tea Party" might just be one of the most important words to add and I think the movement itself will produce a lot of new, conservative words in its own right! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 19:58, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

2011-07-17T02:45:34Z

BobSherman: /* Main Contributions */

{{userboxtop|Bob Sherman}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User American}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{User Reagan}}
{{User TEA Partier}}
{{User Republican}}
{{userboxbottom}}

My name is PVT Robert Jackson Sherman, Sr. and I am a Young-Earth Creationist and Tea Party activist. I believe Conservapedia is a great way to bring the truth to Americans suffering from the disgusting liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country.

== How I Found Conservapedia ==
As stated above, I am a huge supporter of Conservapedia's cause. Like many, I was fed up with all the obvious liberal bias that is found throughout Wikipedia and the media. I briefly considered starting my own wiki site that exemplifies ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian values but happened upon Conservapedia when looking for inspiration for how to start it. Conservapedia proved to be such a valuable, balanced, intellectual, and comprehensive source for the topics it discusses that I chose to use it for my own further education regarding politics and religion and even for news.

== About Me ==
All my life I've been a staunchly devoted fundamentalist Christian and a proud right-wing Republican. I'm part of my local Republican caucus in my native state of Idaho and I attend church every Sunday without fail. I attended Liberty University (Go Flames!) and served for four years in the United States Army and attained the rank of Private. I firmly believe that the evolutionist, atheist agenda is profoundly detrimental to society and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. 
I read the Bible daily and take it literally. I stand by the ''fact'' that God created the Earth 6000 years ago and that a pair of all the animal species of the world fit into Noah's Ark. I vehemently oppose evolution; all the undeniable evidence science has proven about it is just a disgusting liberal, atheist ploy to brainwash America. God created animals in their present form. The Bible says so. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. End of story.
I have an overwhelming distrust of our president. All the endless time and honest devotion he's put into going to church and being a proper Christian is obviously just another ploy to trick America. His birth certificate is obviously fake as well. Yes, he's shown the country his legitimate birth certificate that proves beyond a doubt he was born in Hawaii, but I'm positive that by continuing to criticize and scrutinize we will once and for all prove it's a forgery and that Obama was born in Kenya. I also believe homosexuality is a choice; the fact that 2-3% of the world's population having the gene that causes homosexuality is clearly the work of Satan tempting these sinners. But I digress.
 
I do a lot of campaign work for the conservative, Christian Republicans who run for office.

== Main Contributions ==
Because I am relatively new here, I don't have very many contributions as of yet, but I plan on becoming a reliable, regular contributor to this site. I first created the page for [[Liopleurodon]] and [[Isaac Newton and atheism]].

Talk:Isaac Newton and atheism

2011-07-17T02:44:48Z

BobSherman:

Talk:Isaac Newton and atheism

2011-07-17T02:42:38Z

BobSherman: Created page with "All my sources are listed but unfortunately I'm still not as skilled as I'd like to be in linking them from under the "Sources" heading to the sentences where they derive from. H..."

Isaac Newton and atheism

2011-07-17T02:40:38Z

BobSherman: /* Sources */

''"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."'' - Sir Isaac Newton, ''A Short Scheme of the True Religion''

'''Isaac Newton and atheism''' can refer to either the perceived idea that [[Isaac Newton]] was an atheist or Newton's beliefs concerning [[atheism]].

== Perceived Idea of Atheism ==
Many people who aren't knowledgeable about Newton assert that he was an atheist, predominantly because he is well known for discovering [[gravity]], his three fundamental laws of motion, and the invention of [[calculus]]. Even a slight look at Newton's life, works, and beliefs reveal that this assertion is clearly wrong and unfounded.

== Religious Beliefs ==
Newton was undoubtedly a [[Christian]] man. He was one of the foremost theologians of his day and was constantly reading the [[Bible]] to further his understanding of its meaning. He deeply believed that the beauty of the [[solar system]] required the hand of God.

== Beliefs on Atheism ==
Newton actively distrusted and disliked atheism, as shown in the above quote. Furthermore, Newton proclaimed,''"Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared."'' 
Newton believed that the advanced [[science]] he was uncovering could be reconciled with [[God]] and Creation and wrote extensively on this assertion. His powerful and insightful argument, as stated in the second above quote, can be seen as a fundamental part of any argument asserting the truthfulness of Creation over an atheistic view promoting coincidence and chance to explain the universe and life. 
Isaac Newton to this day proves the reconciliation of science and God and that science without faith is meaningless.

== Sources ==
[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/03/the-faith-of-sir-isaac-newton//The Faith of Sir Isaac Newton] 
[http://www.isaac-newton.org//Isaac Newton: Theology, Prophecy, Science, and Religion] 
[http://www.isaac-newton.org/pdf/Snobelen%20Newton%20his%20science%20and%20religion%202007.pdf/Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion] 
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton//Wikiquote: Isaac Newton]

Isaac Newton and atheism

2011-07-17T02:39:21Z

BobSherman: Created page with "''"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."'' - Sir Isaac Newton, ''A Short Scheme of the True Religion'' '''Isaac Newton and atheism..."

''"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."'' - Sir Isaac Newton, ''A Short Scheme of the True Religion''

'''Isaac Newton and atheism''' can refer to either the perceived idea that [[Isaac Newton]] was an atheist or Newton's beliefs concerning [[atheism]].

== Perceived Idea of Atheism ==
Many people who aren't knowledgeable about Newton assert that he was an atheist, predominantly because he is well known for discovering [[gravity]], his three fundamental laws of motion, and the invention of [[calculus]]. Even a slight look at Newton's life, works, and beliefs reveal that this assertion is clearly wrong and unfounded.

== Religious Beliefs ==
Newton was undoubtedly a [[Christian]] man. He was one of the foremost theologians of his day and was constantly reading the [[Bible]] to further his understanding of its meaning. He deeply believed that the beauty of the [[solar system]] required the hand of God.

== Beliefs on Atheism ==
Newton actively distrusted and disliked atheism, as shown in the above quote. Furthermore, Newton proclaimed,''"Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared."'' 
Newton believed that the advanced [[science]] he was uncovering could be reconciled with [[God]] and Creation and wrote extensively on this assertion. His powerful and insightful argument, as stated in the second above quote, can be seen as a fundamental part of any argument asserting the truthfulness of Creation over an atheistic view promoting coincidence and chance to explain the universe and life. 
Isaac Newton to this day proves the reconciliation of science and God and that science without faith is meaningless.

== Sources ==
[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/03/the-faith-of-sir-isaac-newton//The Faith of Sir Isaac Newton] 
[http://www.isaac-newton.org//Isaac Newton: Theology, Prophecy, Science, and Religion] 
[http://www.isaac-newton.org/pdf/Snobelen%20Newton%20his%20science%20and%20religion%202007.pdf/Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion] 
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton/Wikiquote: Isaac Newton]

User talk:BobSherman

2011-07-16T21:30:01Z

BobSherman: /* Thanks */

Welcome to my talk page (if you are a believer in God, the Bible, and the conservative cause).

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:58, 11 July 2011 (EDT)}}

Thank you very much! [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 02:47, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Sumerian article: Crystalinks as a source? ==

Crystalinks as a source? From a cursory glance it appears to be flaky New Age and/or pagan website. You User page's has some contentions that are very poor as well. You need to step up your game if you want to remain an editor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::My only contribution to the Sumerians page was that last bit about how the irrigation is in conflict with Creation; I didn't write anything else including what was cited by "crystalinks." To be honest, I didn't look up that source to see how reputable it is. If I were you, I'd go after whoever cited the pagan source instead of me. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 03:14, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::By the way, you have been labeled as a parodist. I would go over your previous edits and make any changes that may be necessary. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:25, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are correct about the crystalinks source. However, you still have been labeled as someone who is probably a parodist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:15, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Wow! Way to apologise for your mistake, Conservative. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 09:52, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::TracyS, please feel free to offer abject and profuse apologies to the parodist on my behalf. By the way, do you want to assist the parodist with the [[Soviet atheism]] article? He/she seems to have dropped the ball as far developing a robust article for this entry. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:28, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::TracyS, I see you have been blocked. Given some of your recent post to me and your apparent sock accounts, I can't say I will shedding any tears about this matter. Think of the blocking as a blessing in disguise. Now you can do something more productive with your time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Crystalinks is just an online timeline, it offers very little info beyond what happened when. My suggestion Bob, is to get several works on Sumerians by noted historians or archaeologists - like William F. Albright - and work on the article from there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:50, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you for editing Conservapedia. If it were not for your editing helping to spur the idea of the [[Soviet atheism]] article the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia:Atheism Project]] may have never been launched. I hope you and your son decide to zealously pursue this project together since so many atheists are very ignorant about atheism/[[Christian apologetics]] and have great difficulty spelling the words atheism, atheist and atheists at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:20, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, I'm not sure what to make of it all. I'm glad I helped start a new, big undertaking here and I look forward to contributing if you give me the chance (although I doubt I could ever get my son in on it too). I would also like to say that I don't think it should be an offense to write on Andy's talk page if I have sincere questions for him. Additionally, I would like to reiterate a Theodore Roosevelt quotation that I've often seen proudly displayed on this site: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." The president isn't necessarily the only authority figure this quote should be attributed to. [[User:BobSherman|BobSherman]] 17:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:BobSherman

2011-07-15T07:14:23Z

BobSherman: /* Sumerian article: Crystalinks as a source? */

User talk:BobSherman

2011-07-15T06:47:11Z

BobSherman:

User talk:BobSherman

2011-07-15T06:46:39Z

BobSherman:

Sumerians

2011-07-15T06:45:11Z

BobSherman: /* Agriculture */

The '''Sumerians''' were among the earliest civilizations in the [[Middle East]]. They dwelled in the land between the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]] Rivers known as [[Mesopotamia]]. In the southern portion of Mesopotamia, they established agriculture-based city-states stretching for hundreds of square miles. The most notable of these city-states were Erech, Kish, Nippur and [[Ur]]—the site of [[Abraham]]'s birth. They dominated this area of Mesopotamia through the third millennium B.C. In 2400 B.C., they were conquered by the Akkad Kingdom. Ultimately, the Sumerians were absorbed as a part of Babylon.

==Writing==
The Sumerian written language known as [[cuneiform]] is one of the earliest examples of writing historians and archaeologists have found.<ref>[http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerwriting.html Crystallinks.com]</ref> Many Sumerian records written on clay tablets still survive in museums to this day.

==Agriculture==
The Sumerians' farming techniques were largely dependent on [[irrigation]]. Sumerian agriculture is credited as one of the first uses of irrigation in history, with some irrigation set-ups dating as far back as 4000 B.C.<ref> [http://www.google.com/#q=Sumerian+irrigation&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=zG26S-fcLcT48AbGgYXfBw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CDYQ5wIwCg&fp=caec63d5ff72707a Timeline of Sumerian civilization]</ref> This, however, is contested by Creationists who assert that since God created the earth around 4000 BC, Sumerians could not have had irrigation set-ups by themselves at the time (or even could have formed their own culture so soon after Creation).

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Middle East]]
[[Category:History]]

Vladimir Lenin

2011-07-15T06:03:24Z

BobSherman:

[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|right|thumb|Lenin]]
'''Vladimir Lenin''' (born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov <ref>"Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" (Russian: Владимир Ильич Улянов, Ленин) was the pseudonym he used after 1900 to disguise his identity.</ref>) (1870-1924) was the leader of Russian Communism and an important theoretician of Marxism. Coming to power in 1917 he became dictator of the [[Soviet Union]]. All over the Soviet Union there were statues and paintings honoring his memory; they were removed when Communism collapsed in 1991.

==Early Life==
Lenin was born on April 22, 1870 (later to be celebrated as [[Earth Day]]) to a middle class Russian family; his parents were school teachers. In 1889, he became a [[Marxist]] after his older brother was hanged for the murder of Tsar Aleksandr II. Lenin obtained a law degree shortly afterwards, and by 1895 was a [[subversion (political)|subversive]] who was arrested and sent to a prison in [[Siberia]] as punishment. He was in exile 1900-1917. He collaborated with Georgy Plekhanov and others to set up the clandestine newspaper ''Iskra'' (The Spark), designed to "ignite" radical consciousness. In the pages of ''Iskra'', Lenin denounced any alliance with liberals or other elements of the bourgeoisie because they would keep power in the hands of the middle class. He emphasized social democracy--equality of condition, rather than political democracy, as the basis for individual freedom. His major theoretical publication was the pamphlet "What Is to Be Done?" (1902). In 1903 he organized and controlled the '''"Bolshevik"''' wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labor party, fighting the opposition "Mensheviks." Lenin, like his populist predecessors in the Russian radical movement, stressed the need for a small elite vanguard to lead the revolution

Despite disapproval of the Mensheviks, Lenin's followers continued to raise money through a mixture of bank robberies, kidnapping, extortion, terrorism, and murder. Unlike the leaders of other Marxist organizations, Lenin did not spent the money on his own lifestyle and carefully strengthened his movement.

With German help he returned to Russia after the [[Tsar]] abdicated in March 1917 and a short-lived liberal democracy allowed for free elections. At the time, most Bolsheviks were more interested in using the ballot box to gain political power. Lenin rejected elections,and declared, "History will not forgive us if we do not take power now."

==Revolution==
In 1917 Lenin opposed Russia's continued participation in World War I and advocated proceeding directly to a socialist revolution, bypassing bourgeois rule. He rejected cooperation with the Provisional Government and drove some old Bolsheviks out of the party, while coopting many younger, more radical members. [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Grigori Zinoviev]], and others rallied to Lenin's side during the elections to the party's Central Committee during the 7th Party Conference in April 1917 and became the new leadership. The Bolsheviks were allowed free expression of disagreements until a decision by the Central Committee was reached, and then no opposition or disagreement was permitted. Lenin now ruled the Bolsheviks from his base in Petrograd (St. Petersburg).

In October 1917, Lenin masterminded a [[coup d'etat]] which overthrew the [[Provisional Government]] which had replaced the [[Russian Empire]]. In what historian [[Simon Sebag Montefiore]] has described as a comedy of errors, the Winter Palace was shelled and the Provisional Cabinet was placed under arrest by a mixture of Red Guards and radical sailors from the Kronstadt Naval Base.
==Dictator==
Lenin ruled the [[Soviet Union]] under Marxism-Leninism, until 1922, when he had a debilitating stroke and retired.

{{Cquote|A wide campaign of "education" was undertaken to show the people why "workers' rule" meant, in practice, [[Nomenklatura|managers]]' rule. Where necessary, the education by the word was supplemented with education by [[firing squad]] or [[concentration camp]] or forced labour battalion. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', (1940).</ref> }}

==Death==
Lenin, a workaholic who avoided vacations and downtime, died in 1924 following a series of progressively more serious strokes. [[Joseph Stalin]] was his even more brutal successor.
==Interpretations==
===Lenin on revolution===
Before 1917 lenin thought that revolution was more likely to break out in Russia than in any other country on the continent, and he expected the outbreak of other revolutions in Europe, or at least in Central Europe, after the Russian Revolution. During the Civil War he considered a short period of War Communism as an extension of the revolutionary situation from which a direct path might open toward socialism. However, after the failure of War Communism he returned to his earlier viewpoint, that is, to the necessity of a transition period. This was reflected in the New Economic Policy (NEP) - which meant a transition including both private enterprise and a market economy. Stalin deemed the transition favored by Lenin to be too dangerous, because it carried with it the threat of a defeat and an eventual restoration of capitalism
===Dictatorship of the proletariat===
see also [[Dictatorship of the proletariat]]
Lenin saw the Marxist concept of the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in terms of a dictatorship exercised not by a democratically chosen majority but by a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|vanguard minority revolutionary party]], ruthlessly controlled by a few leaders like himself. He eventually accepted the need for a state bureaucracy, and his more extreme opposition to the bourgeoisie led him to favor their exclusion and disenfranchisement to the benefit of the urban working class.

==Leninism as a religion==
Lenin's utopian design of a revolutionary community of virtuosi was a typical political religion of an intelligentsia longing for an inner-worldly salvation, a socialist paradise without exploitation and alienation, to be implanted in the backward Russian society at the outskirts of the industrialized and modernized Western Europe. The Russian Revolution of October 1917 accomplished the institutionalization of a political religion combining a political and sacral monopoly of power and belief. Consequently, the Leninist policy of social extermination of political opponents, ideological rivals, and stigmatized social classes became a sacral obligation to be fulfilled by the new ideological orthodoxy. The beginning iconography of a Leninist sacral tradition praised Lenin as a messianic and numinous leader. This process of iconographic work in progress culminated after Lenin's death in the sacral Lenin cult. The Lenin mausoleum served as the monumental centerpiece of sacral rites and practices to be enacted by the Stalinist orthodoxy. Joseph Stalin's invention of a sacral tradition of Marxism-Leninism qualified him as the only true disciple of Lenin. Therefore, Stalin claimed the monopoly of the infallible interpretation of the holy scriptures, summarized in his own dogmatic performances. In this sense, Stalin's Leninism became itself the religion of the Soviet state.<ref>Klaus-Georg Riegel, "Marxism-Leninism as a Political Religion," ''Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions'' 2005 6(1): 97-126 in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

==Image and memory==
After his death in 1924 Stalin portrayed Lenin as an infallible humanitarian; his writings were viewed as gospel. Museums were devoted to his life and work, cities were named for him, and huge statues and monuments honored his memory. Beginning in 1985, however, the Lenin cult began to crumble. Party chairman [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] was a faithful disciple of Lenin, but he now faced the reality that the economically bankrupt Communist state was rapidly decaying. As the Communist nation unraveled, so did the Lenin personality cult. Leningrad residents voted to restore the St. Petersburg name; the once-crowded museums attracted few visitors; and Lenin's philosophy and actions were found less than perfect. In 1991 as Communism fell, the statues and paintings went into cold storage. By 1995 plans were being made to bury Lenin's corpse, which was finally acknowledged to be putrefying just as the remains of any other mortal, as the cult itself fell into "the dustbin of history."<ref> Trevor J. Smith, "The Collapse of the Lenin Personality Cult in Soviet Russia, 1985-1995," ''Historian'' 1998 60(2): 325-343, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>
== See also ==
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
==Further reading==
===Biography===
* Clark, Ronald W. ''Lenin'' (1988). 570 pp.
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002), 561pp; standard scholarly biography; a short version of his 3 vol detailed biography
* Volkogonov, Dmitri. ''Lenin: Life and Legacy'' (1994). 600 pp.
===Specialized scholarly studies===
* Anderson, Kevin. ''Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism: A Critical Study'' (1995) 311 pp.
* Copleston, Frederick Charles. ''Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Berdyaev'' (1986). 445pp. by a conservative
* Debo, Richard K. ''Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918-1921'' (1992).
* Marples, David R. ''Lenin's Revolution: Russia, 1917-1921'' (2000) 156pp. short survey
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Pipes, Richard. ''Russia under the Bolshevik Regime.'' (1994). 608 pp.
* Pomper, Philip. ''Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin: The Intelligentsia and Power.'' (1990). 446 pp.
* Schapiro, Leonard and Reddaway, Peter, eds. ''Lenin: The Man, the Theorist, the Leader - a Reappraisal'' (1987). 317 pp.
* White, James D. ''Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution'' (2001) 262pp.

===Primary sources===
* Desai, Meghnad, ed. ''Lenin's Economic Writings.'' (1989). 363 pp.
* Pipes, Richard, ed. ''The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive.'' (1996). 185 pp.
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]

User:BobSherman

2011-07-15T05:55:08Z

BobSherman:

{{userboxtop|Bob Sherman}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User American}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{User Reagan}}
{{User TEA Partier}}
{{User Republican}}
{{userboxbottom}}

My name is PVT Robert Jackson Sherman, Sr. and I am a Young-Earth Creationist and Tea Party activist. I believe Conservapedia is a great way to bring the truth to Americans suffering from the disgusting liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country.

== How I Found Conservapedia ==
As stated above, I am a huge supporter of Conservapedia's cause. Like many, I was fed up with all the obvious liberal bias that is found throughout Wikipedia and the media. I briefly considered starting my own wiki site that exemplifies ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian values but happened upon Conservapedia when looking for inspiration for how to start it. Conservapedia proved to be such a valuable, balanced, intellectual, and comprehensive source for the topics it discusses that I chose to use it for my own further education regarding politics and religion and even for news.

== About Me ==
All my life I've been a staunchly devoted fundamentalist Christian and a proud right-wing Republican. I'm part of my local Republican caucus in my native state of Idaho and I attend church every Sunday without fail. I attended Liberty University (Go Flames!) and served for four years in the United States Army and attained the rank of Private. I firmly believe that the evolutionist, atheist agenda is profoundly detrimental to society and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. 
I read the Bible daily and take it literally. I stand by the ''fact'' that God created the Earth 6000 years ago and that a pair of all the animal species of the world fit into Noah's Ark. I vehemently oppose evolution; all the undeniable evidence science has proven about it is just a disgusting liberal, atheist ploy to brainwash America. God created animals in their present form. The Bible says so. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. End of story.
I have an overwhelming distrust of our president. All the endless time and honest devotion he's put into going to church and being a proper Christian is obviously just another ploy to trick America. His birth certificate is obviously fake as well. Yes, he's shown the country his legitimate birth certificate that proves beyond a doubt he was born in Hawaii, but I'm positive that by continuing to criticize and scrutinize we will once and for all prove it's a forgery and that Obama was born in Kenya. I also believe homosexuality is a choice; the fact that 2-3% of the world's population having the gene that causes homosexuality is clearly the work of Satan tempting these sinners. But I digress.
 
I do a lot of campaign work for the conservative, Christian Republicans who run for office.

== Main Contributions ==
Because I am relatively new here, I don't have very many contributions as of yet, but I plan on becoming a reliable, regular contributor to this site. I first created the page for [[Liopleurodon]].

User:BobSherman

2011-07-15T00:31:19Z

BobSherman:

{{userboxtop|Bob Sherman}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User American}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{User Reagan}}
{{User TEA Partier}}
{{User Republican}}
{{userboxbottom}}

My name is PFC Robert Jackson Sherman, Sr. and I am a Young-Earth Creationist and Tea Party activist. I believe Conservapedia is a great way to bring the truth to Americans suffering from the disgusting liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country.

== How I Found Conservapedia ==
As stated above, I am a huge supporter of Conservapedia's cause. Like many, I was fed up with all the obvious liberal bias that is found throughout Wikipedia and the media. I briefly considered starting my own wiki site that exemplifies ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian values but happened upon Conservapedia when looking for inspiration for how to start it. Conservapedia proved to be such a valuable, balanced, intellectual, and comprehensive source for the topics it discusses that I chose to use it for my own further education regarding politics and religion and even for news.

== About Me ==
All my life I've been a staunchly devoted fundamentalist Christian and a proud right-wing Republican. I'm part of my local Republican caucus in my native state of Idaho and I attend church every Sunday without fail. I attended Liberty University (Go Flames!) and served for four years in the United States Army and attained the rank of Private First Class. I firmly believe that the evolutionist, atheist agenda is profoundly detrimental to society and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. 
I read the Bible daily and take it literally. I stand by the ''fact'' that God created the Earth 6000 years ago and that a pair of all the animal species of the world fit into Noah's Ark. I vehemently oppose evolution; all the undeniable evidence science has proven about it is just a disgusting liberal, atheist ploy to brainwash America. God created animals in their present form. The Bible says so. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. End of story.
I have an overwhelming distrust of our president. All the endless time and honest devotion he's put into going to church and being a proper Christian is obviously just another ploy to trick America. His birth certificate is obviously fake as well. Yes, he's shown the country his legitimate birth certificate that proves beyond a doubt he was born in Hawaii, but I'm positive that by continuing to criticize and scrutinize we will once and for all prove it's a forgery and that Obama was born in Kenya. I also believe homosexuality is a choice; the fact that 2-3% of the world's population having the gene that causes homosexuality is clearly the work of Satan tempting these sinners. But I digress.
 
I do a lot of campaign work for the conservative, Christian Republicans who run for office.

== Main Contributions ==
Because I am relatively new here, I don't have very many contributions as of yet, but I plan on becoming a reliable, regular contributor to this site. I first created the page for [[Liopleurodon]].

User:BobSherman

2011-07-15T00:30:35Z

BobSherman:

{{userboxtop|Bob Sherman}}
{{User Christian 1}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User American}}
{{User Bushfan}}
{{User Reagan}}
{{User TEA Partier}}
{{User Republican}}
{{userboxbottom}}

My name is PFC Robert Jackson Sherman, Sr. and I am a Young-Earth Creationist and Tea Party activist. I believe Conservapedia is a great way to bring the truth to Americans suffering from the disgusting liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country.

== How I Found Conservapedia ==
As stated above, I am a huge supporter of Conservapedia's cause. Like many, I was fed up with all the obvious liberal bias that is found throughout Wikipedia and the media. I briefly considered starting my own wiki site that exemplifies ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian values but happened upon Conservapedia when looking for inspiration for how to start it. Conservapedia proved to be such a valuable, balanced, intellectual, and comprehensive source for the topics it discusses that I chose to use it for my own further education regarding politics and religion and even for news.

== About Me ==
All my life I've been a staunchly devoted fundamentalist Christian and a proud right-wing Republican. I'm part of my local Republican caucus in my native state of Idaho and I attend church every Sunday without fail. I attended Liberty University (Go Flames!) and served for four years in the United States Army and attained the rank of Private First Class. I firmly believe that the evolutionist, atheist agenda is profoundly detrimental to society and believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. 
I read the Bible daily and take it literally. I stand by the ''fact'' that God created the Earth 6000 years ago and that a pair of all the animal species of the world fit into Noah's Ark. I vehemently oppose evolution; all the undeniable evidence science has proven about it is just a disgusting liberal, atheist ploy to brainwash America. God created animals in their present form. The Bible says so. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. End of story.
I have an overwhelming distrust of our president. All the endless time and honest devotion he's put into going to church and being a proper Christian is obviously just another ploy to trick America. His birth certificate is obviously fake as well. Yes, he's shown the country his legitimate birth certificate that proves beyond a doubt he was born in Hawaii, but I'm positive that by continuing to criticize and scrutinize we will once and for all prove it's a forgery and that Obama was born in Kenya. I also believe homosexuality is a choice; the fact that 2-3% of the world's population having the gene that causes homosexuality is clearly the work of Satan tempting these sinners. But I digress.
 
I do a lot of campaign work for the conservative, Christian Republicans who run for office.

== Main Contributions ==
Because I am relatively new here, I don't have very many contributions as of yet, but I plan on becoming a reliable, regular contributor to this site. I first created the page for [[Liopleurodon]].