Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Teotihuacan

2007-03-24T01:38:04Z

Chantillylace: Teotihuacan moved to Teotihuacan is a Benny tied to a Tree

"The City of the Gods", Teotihuacan was built around 200AD by the [[Teotihuacans]] using astronomical observations. With 150,000 inhabitants, it was probably the largest city in [[Mesoamerica]]. Today is one of the most beautiful archaeological sites in [[Mexico]].

[[Category:Cities]]

Theodora

2007-03-24T01:37:57Z

Chantillylace: Theodora moved to Theodora is a Benny tied to a Tree

Daughter of a bear-keeper, she became the wife of [[Justinian]] (emperor of Constantinople during the 6th century) and advocated women's rights. She supported the monophysite heresy (stating that Christ's nature was almost exclusively divine).

Talk:Gore Vidal

2007-03-24T01:37:55Z

Chantillylace: Talk:Gore vidal moved to Talk:Gore vidal is a Benny tied to a Tree

The title needs proper grammar corrections (ie "vidal" being changed to "Vidal").

Gore Vidal

2007-03-24T01:37:55Z

Chantillylace: Gore vidal moved to Gore vidal is a Benny tied to a Tree

{{stub}}
Gore Vidal, born 1925, is an eminent, prolific American writer. His first novel, Williwaw, was published when he was 19 years old and deals with the experiences of men together on an army boat during the Second World War. It was well received and sold moderately well. Vidal became recognised as one of a new set of young writers emerging in the immediate post-war period.
His third novel, The City and the Pillar, was the first American homosexual novel to become a nation-wide bestseller. This was in spite of numerous hostile reviews and several booksellers refusing to stock the novel. Several years later, Vidal published a revised edition.
His other novels include the historical fictions Julian and Creation, the American historical fictions Burr, Washington DC, Lincoln, Empire and others, and the satirical fictions Myra Breckinridge, Myron, Messiah, Duluth, Kalki, Two Sisters, Live from Golgotha, and The Smithsonian Institution.
He has also published many essays critical of American culture, social values and politics, as well as some literary essays and reviews. These have recently been collected in the book United States, which won the National Book Award.
Vidal has published a memoir, Palimpsest, which was widely acclaimed. A second memoir, Point to Point Navigation, has also recently appeared.

Talk:Jonathan Edwards

2007-03-24T01:37:53Z

Chantillylace: Talk:Jonathan Edwards moved to Talk:Jonathan Edwards is a Benny tied to a Tree

There's a third JE; the 'medium,' Jon Edwards. Don't know if he's worth an article here or not, but it may be worth mentioning that neither of these JEs are him. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi.
Smallpox vaccination, which involves the administration of attenuated live virus, (and has well-recognized dangers) was not in use at this time.
Smallpox itself killed millions...the first successful preventative strategy, other than isolation, was ''innoculation'', which involved taking material from the pox of an ill patient, and injecting it into the skin of a healthy patient. One of the first successful human trials was done on this, and used actual statistics. Unfortunately, it was done on prisoners and orphans. It did, however, provide decent protection, but there was, by today's standards, a very high rate of illness and death (lower than the rate of smallpox, though, during epidemic times).

Eventually, vaccination was developed, which was actually more of a form of innoculation, as modern genetics had not yet been developed. An attenuated live virus (of Cowpox, not smallpox) was used. This had a much lower rate of complications than using smallpox itself, but still could lead to serious illness, especially in young or unhealthy people exposed to the virus, or to those recently vaccinated.

I'd be happy to share more, if anyone is interested.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Patrick Henry

2007-03-24T01:37:47Z

Chantillylace: Patrick Henry moved to Patrick Henry is a Benny tied to a Tree

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was a Patriot during the American Revolution, and an anti-Federalist who opposed ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] afterwards. An attorney, he prevailed in the Parsons' Cause by defending the right of the [[Virginia]] colony to fix the price of the tobacco to be paid to the clergy in violation of a contrary ruling in England.<ref>http://www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/HENRY.HTM</ref>

Patrick Henry is best known today for the rousing speech that he gave on March 23, 1775 to the 2nd Virginia Convention at Richmond's St. John's Church:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-03-23&view=View</ref>

:I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery ... We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated ... We have prostrated ourselves before the throne ... Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence. ...

:There is a just God who presides over the destines of nations ... who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! '''I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'''

== References ==

<references/>

Prodigal Son

2007-03-24T01:37:46Z

Chantillylace: Prodigal Son moved to Prodigal Son is a Benny tied to a Tree

The '''Prodigal Son''' is a parable taught by [[Jesus]] to convey God's unbounded love and forgiveness. This parable appears only in the [[Gospel of Luke]]. Like all of Jesus' parables, its message transcends language and cultural differences.

The parable, set forth at Luke 15:11-32 (NIV), is as follows:<ref>http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=lu+15:11&version=niv&context=1&showtools=1</ref>

:11 Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them. 13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living.

:14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.

:"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. 21 "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' 22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

:25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.' 28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!' 31 "'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

== Interpretation ==
The parable has several key elements. The prodigal (wasteful) son does not return until he begins to judge his own conduct and situation objectively.<ref>Luke 15:13-16 (NIV)</ref> Until that point, he is like others who insist on rejecting God for something far worse than what God routinely provides to everyone, family and worker alike.<ref>Luke 15:17-20 (NIV)</ref> When the prodigal son does return, his father (God) rushes out to meet him "while he was still a long way off."<ref>Luke 15:20 (NIV)</ref> Finally, God's rejection of his other son's objection shows that God's forgiveness is always available, regardless of inconsistent treatment of those seeking for it.<ref>Luke 15:28-32 (NIV)</ref> Put another way, it is never too late to ask for forgiveness from God.
== References ==

<references/>

William Bradford

2007-03-24T01:37:43Z

Chantillylace: William Bradford moved to William Bradford is a Benny tied to a Tree

William Bradford lived from March 1590 to May 9, 1657. He was the governor of the [[Plymouth Plantation|Plymouth colony]] for 30 years.

Bradford fled England when he was 17 years old, and along with other persecuted Pilgrims went to Holland. When he was 30, he sailed to America with the other Pilgrims on the Mayflower, and he helped draft the [[Mayflower Compact]]. The Pilgrims elected him governor in 1621. He was so popular that he was reelected 30 more times, until he died.

He wrote the leading book about the Pilgrim settlement in his ''History of the Plymouth Plantation'' (1650). There he said:<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-03-19&view=View</ref>

:Since ye first breaking out of ye lighte of ye gospell in our Honourable Nation of England ... what warrs and opposissions ... Satan hath raised ... against the Saints ... by bloody death and cruell torments ... imprisonments, banishments ... What could now sustaine them but ye spirite of God and His grace? ... Ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: Our fathers ... came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto ye Lord, and He heard their voyce. ... All great and honourable actions are accompanied with great difficulties ... Out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing ... and, as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone unto many, yea in some sort to our whole nation; let the glorious name of Jehovah have all the praise.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Isaac Newton

2007-03-24T01:37:34Z

Chantillylace: Talk:Isaac Newton moved to Talk:Isaac Newton is a Benny tied to a Tree

==Regarding "Newton was a devout Christian who said his discoveries were inspired by God"==
I am not changing anything yet, but my (christian) science book says that Newton had a firm belief in God, but denied the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ. Not exactly the beliefs of a "devout Christian" --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's a big surprise to me. My understanding is that Newton was a Christian who relied on the Bible daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Relied on the Bible daily? yes. Accepted the Trinity? Definitely not. Whether that makes him a "devout Christian" is presumably therefore very much a defintional issue of how you define Christian. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, we don't need to take sides on that matter. We can just report his beliefs and leave it at that; readers can decide for themselves whether he's Christian by their own standards. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Newton and Falsification ==

I’ve added the following paragraph (or a version of it) at the end of this article a number of times:

:Newton’s Laws stood as “laws” for years after his death, but in 1816 the discovery of Mercury’s anomalous perihelion provided evidence that Newton’s laws did not always correctly predict behavior in the observed, external, world. <ref>Newton’s Laws Falsified 1816[http://www.galilean-library.org/lakatos.html]</ref> It was not until 1919, however, that a series of experiments designed to test [[General Relativity]] provided the scientific community with enough evidence to replace those laws. <ref>Newton’s Laws in 1919 [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html]</ref> Once a theory could better predict the external world than Newton’s Laws, they were fully falsified and replaced as the dominant theory in physics. <ref>Putnam, Dr. Hilary. Mathematics, Matter, and Method. Cambridge University Press. 1980. Page 257 [http://books.google.com/books?id=oEXw5dsrY64C&pg=RA2-PA257&lpg=RA2-PA257&dq=newton+falsify+mercury&source=web&ots=r1RiPYytw2&sig=3f-OYsTqprSmMxgmSgePqsjoXWo]</ref>

The first time it was deleted because I had not sourced it correctly, which is fine. So I sourced it properly and it stood for awhile. Then part of it was deleted because it was to quote the editing comment “Heresy” and “unintelligible”. Since I figured heresy was a bad reason to delete information, especially when properly sourced, I tried to make my comments more intelligible and replaced them. Then part of it was deleted—I am informed because the 1919 experiments have been discredited. But, after researching the matter, I can find no evidence to support this claim (That, of course, doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist—just that I can’t find it). Even if, however, the 1919 experiments have been discredited that is not, especially relevant to this article, as the 1919 experiments are only important as a turning point in scientific opinion about Newton’s Laws—in particular it marks the date a theory was better able to predict new information than Newton’s Laws could—since then numerous experiments have supported general relativity (though if past is prologue it will soon be on the way out in favor of a better theory itself) but here the only important thing is that it seems to predict better than Newton’s Laws predict and I think it belongs here. However, before I could post this discussion a third contributor deleted the remainder of my paragraph, with only the comment “1816 observation did not falsify Newton”. I’ve linked to two reputable sources for this point, including Dr. Hilary Putnam—second only to Popper himself in the field of philosophy of science—on this point. Whereas the person who deleted the 1816 claim did not provide any evidence to support this deletion—nor can I find any (again, it may be out there, but I can’t find it).

For those reasons, I believe this information belongs in the article—but since it has been repeatedly deleted I’ve chosen to put it on the talk page for now. Can anyone cite a reason to believe this paragraph is false, or explain why it does not belong here? Or can anyone cite to more reputable sources to bolster this paragraph? Or can anyone offer suggested changes that would make it palatable to all parties to this debate?

: I do think that it is pretty absurd to say that some 1816 observation of Mercury falsified Newton. It is true that there was no good explanation for Mercury’s anomalous perihelion, but there were possible explanations that did not involve changing Newton's law of gravity.
: I also don't think that a 20th century philosopher is a reliable source on this point. If an 1816 observation really falsified Newton, then there should have been physicists in 1817 saying that the observation proves that they should all stop relying on Newton's laws. There weren't then, and there aren't now. Newton's laws are still useful and have not been "fully falsified".
: Yes, General Relativity has superceded Newtonian gravitation, but the 1919 observations did not provide the necessary evidence. The 1919 observation was sold as proof to the public at the time, but was actually inconclusive.
: On another topic, why is Newton called "Sir"? I wouldn't think that a conservative American encyclopedia would respect some silly British nobility title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If you read the Putnam (who I find to be an incredibly reliable source when it comes to the history of science, as his job is to study the history of science and draw well reasoned conclusions based on that history, and as he is highly regarded in his field –which he would not be if he made basic errors)article you will see that you are making the exact same point he is—only he draws a different, and, I think, better grounded conclusion. Science is not a monolithic beast, and it does not move quickly. That is why, though the 1816 observations falsified Newton’s Laws (and remember one wrong prediction means the whole theory is falsified and a new theory must be sought to replace it), science was slow to react. Further, Newton’s Laws still were better predictors than any other theory (until relativity hit the scene in 1919) so they were still used—and in fact are still used as they generate the right result for the objects big enough to see on the surface of the earth moving at a speed we can see them—but that does not mean that the laws were not falsified, just that they are still useful.
:::Of course if you have a better date for when relativity superseded Newton’s laws that is what you ought to add to the article rather than deleting information and replacing it with nothing (For if Newton’s laws were superseded, then they were falsified, and that information belongs in the article). I still have seen no evidence, however, offered that the 1919 experiments were flawed (again, I’m open to the idea that they may be flawed, but would like some evidence of that—especially since I have evidence to the contrary).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Putnam is entitled to his opinions, but I just don't see how an 1816 anomaly could have falsified Newtonian gravity. There were other possible explanations for that anomaly, such as an unknown asteroid or an oblateness of the Sun. Those explanations might not have required any change to Newtonian gravity.
:::: Here is a good account of the 1919 eclipse. [http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102462] It says of Eddington's announcement:
:::::The reaction from scientists at this special meeting was ambivalent. Some questioned the reliability of statistical evidence from such a small number of stars. This skepticism seems in retrospect to be entirely justified. Although the results from Sobral were consistent with Einstein’s prediction, Eddington had been careful to remove from the analysis all measurements taken with the main equipment, the astrographic telescope and used only the results from the 4-inch. As I have explained, there were good grounds for this because of problems with the focus of the larger instrument. On the other hand, these plates yielded a value for the deflection of 0.93 seconds of arc, very close to the Newtonian prediction. Some suspected Eddington of cooking the books by leaving these measurements out.
::::At any rate, this is an article on Newton, not relativity or philosophy. The exact date in which physicists became convinced of a non-Newtonian explanation for Mercury's precession doesn't seem very relevant to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you for the link, it is most informative (I've not had a chance to read it fully but so far quite informative) but your second point is, I think spot on, I hadn't really realized that that was your objection. I thought the objection was to the claim that Newton's laws had been falsified, not that the exact date was off.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reference==

<references/>

==Inspired Kant==
The article says:
:Newton is often seen as one of the greatest scientists of all time due to his contributions, which inspired Kant to create the philosophical concepts of the categorical imperative and the synthetic a priori.
Is this a joke? What does Kant have to do with anything? Newton inspired some great science -- who cares about whatever mediocre philosophy he might have inspired? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Isaac Newton

2007-03-24T01:37:34Z

Chantillylace: Isaac Newton moved to Isaac Newton is a Benny tied to a Tree

[[Isaac Newton]] was an English [[scientist]] who lived from 1634 to 1727. He was a physicist, astronomer, mathematician, alchemist and natural philosopher. He is probably best known for his Theory of Universal Gravitation and his Laws of Motion. His contributions also include inventing the reflecting telescope, developing [[calculus]] simultaneously with German physicist Gottfried Leibniz. Each accused the other of plagiarism, but neither could prove it.<ref>Newton Biography[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]</ref>), and numerous other contributions to his fields of study.

Newton was the first to demonstrate that the same laws that govern the motion of celestial objects also govern the motion of things on Earth. Newton contributed greatly to the advancement of science. His work also advanced the concept of heliocentrism (the view that the Sun is at the center of the solar system).

Newton was a devout [[Christian]] who said his discoveries were inspired by [[God]].<ref>http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/74</ref>. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science. He said of himself, "I have a fundamental belief in the [[Bible]] as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."<ref>Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref>

== Gravity ==

Newton developed the theory of universal gravitation, more commonly known as gravity, when, according to an urban legend, an apple struck him on the head. He realized that the same force pulled the apple to the ground, as kept Jupiter's moons in orbit. His theory stated that all matter is attracted to matter by a force, whose strength increases proportionally to the mass of the objects involved, and inverse proportionately to the distance between them. The theory's accuracy was later improved by the theory of relativity.

== Religious Beliefs ==

Newton believed that God's creation of the universe was self evident given its grandeur.<ref>Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. “The emergence of Rational Dissent.” Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.</ref> He also warned against using his laws to replace the creator. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."<ref>Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.</ref>

Newton is often seen as one of the greatest scientists of all time due to his contributions, which inspired [[Kant]] to create the philosophical concepts of the [[categorical imperative]] and the [[synthetic a priori]].

After his death and burial, Newton was exhumed so he could be buried in a more prominent location in [[Westminster Abbey]]. During this exhumation process, it was discovered that Newton had large amounts of mercury in his body, probably as a direct result of his [[alchemy|alchemical]] experiments. Exposure to large amounts of mercury may explain Newton’s eccentricity in his latter years, as well as his cause of death. <ref>Newton Biography[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]</ref>

==Reference==

[[Category:Biographies]]

<references/>

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

2007-03-24T01:37:27Z

Chantillylace: Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach moved to Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach is a Benny tied to a Tree

==No time to sort it out now==
Both the older article at [[Johann Sebastian Bach]] and the newer one that was at [[Bach, johann sebastian]], which I intended to merge, seem to have questionable content mixed in with valid content. I don't know enough to fix it all off the top of my head and I don't have time to research it now. I hope others will help with this.

Examples of problems with the newer article: "Prolific both in terms of his musical output and his offspring..." yes... "Bach wrote more than three thousand opus numbers (half of which survive), and had an estimated two dozen children (half of whom survived,"... so far so good... " though all of them deceased by now)." What? "The title of his collection '''Bach's Great Organ Works''' is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." What?

It also says "his music was exclusively [[religious]]." The Musical Offering? I don't think so, and I don't think it applies to the Brandenburgs or the Art of Fugue.

The old article talks about a "Mass in C Minor." I think that's wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]]

Johann Sebastian Bach

2007-03-24T01:37:27Z

Chantillylace: Johann Sebastian Bach moved to Johann Sebastian Bach is a Benny tied to a Tree

'''Johann Sebastian Bach''' (March 21, 1685 - July 28, 1750) was a German composer and organist active in the late [[Baroque]] era who has been recognized as one of greatest composers of the Western classical music tradition.

==Biography==

Bach came from an extremely musical family, which had been supported by local governments and churches throughout Germany for many years. After graduating from the St. Michael's School in Luneburg, he became a court musician in Weimar, where his fame as a keyboardist began to spread. Later in the year, Bach became the organist at St. Boniface's Church in Arnstadt with help from some family connections, where he often clashed with authorities over the quality of the choir and a long, unauthorized leave of absence where he visited the great composer [[Buxtehude]], who became an important musical influence. After leaving the church and serving as the Kapellmeister and court organist in various cities, Bach ended up in Leipzig in 1723, where he spent the rest of his life.

Although Bach was always famous as an organist and his works have constantly been viewed as pedagogically important, his reputation among the general public was fairly low until several of his works were revived by the composer [[Felix Mendelssohn]], most importantly an 1829 performance of the [[St. Matthew Passion]].

Bach had several children who became famous composers in their own right, such as [[Wilhelm Friedemann Bach]], [[Carl Phillipp Emmanuel Bach]], and [[Johann Christian Bach]].

==Music==

Bach was a devout Lutheran, and much of his music was religious in nature. Bach attributed the beauty of his music to [[God]], by writing the letters "S.D.G." or "Soli Deo Gloria" in many of his scores. He is well-known for his complete mastery of [[counterpoint]], as well as his use of styles from many different regions of Europe. He also used the cruciform [[B-A-C-H]] motif in his work as a sign of devotion to Christ, although future composers used it to pay homage to their great predecessor.

Important works include: the Mass in B Minor, the St. Matthew Passion, the Brandenburg Concerti, the Musical Offering, the Art of Fugue, the Well-Tempered Clavier, the English and French Orchestral Suites, the Goldberg Variations, and numerous church cantatas and organ works, notably the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor and the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Some of his most famous pieces are drawn from the cantatas, including ''Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring'' and ''Sheep may Safely Graze.''

Bach also had a great influence on composers who followed him. Composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, and Mendelssohn began using more contrapuntal elements in their works as a result of his influence. In addition, Chopin's [[Preludes Op. 28]] and Shostakovich's [[Preludes and Fugues Op. 87]] are based explicitly on the [[Well-Tempered Clavier]]. Other works that play explicit homage to Bach include Beethoven's [[Diabelli Variations]] and Liszt's [[Prelude and Fugue on B-A-C-H]].

Important interpreters of Bach's works include [[Glenn Gould]], [[Wanda Landowska]], [[Rosalyn Tureck]], [[Angela Hewitt]], [[Pablo Casals]], and [[Mark Steinbach]]. There have also been many "modernizations" of Bach's music by artists as varied as [[Wendy Carlos]] and [[Jethro Tull]].







Bach is considered to have been the "master of masters." He summed up his view of music as follows:<ref>http://www.americanminute.com/ (Entry for March 21, 2007)</ref>

:The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer

2007-03-24T01:37:25Z

Chantillylace: Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer moved to Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer is a Benny tied to a Tree

Citations needed for the assertion that he did not contribute much to the Manhattan Project beyond management and that he associated with communists, as well as about the relativity stuff.--[[User:John|John]] 13:22, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Sources would be nice.

:This article is about as extreme an example of spin as I can imagine, but it looks to me like facts seen in a funhouse mirror... but facts.

:The association with Communists is true enough, I think; Jean Tatlock in particular. That can probably be sourced to [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/opp01.htm Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer]. I don't think Oppenheimer denied associating with Communists. The security report says
::Dr. Oppenheimer in his testimony before this Board admitted having associated with Jean Tatlock from 1936 until 1943. He stated that he saw her only rarely between 1939 and 1943, but admitted that the association was intimate. He admitted having seen Jean Tatlock under most intimate circumstances in June or July of 1943, during the time when he was Director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, and admitted that he knew she had been a Communist and that there was not any reason for him to believe that she was not at that time still a Communist. He named several Communists, Communist functionaries or Communist sympathizers whom he had met through Jean Tatlock, or as a result of his association with her.

:I assume that that Oppenheimer really did say what the report says he said. Whether he was disloyal or a security risk a very, very different matter.

:"high-level manager" is interesting, too. It's been a while since I've read a biography of Oppenheimer, but I would have thought "charismatic leader who was able to recruit stellar scientific talent through scientists' personal confidence in him" and "kept a herd of independent-minded academics focussed, on track, and got them to actually deliver working weapons, unlike Heisenberg in Germany" would be more like it. But "did little of the theoretical or actual experimental work" sounds reasonable.

:I don't know if it's fair to call him "the man who built the atomic bomb," and in fact I'd like to see a source for ''that'' characterization. If you had to pick one person to fit that phrase, I'd have thought it would have been General Leslie Groves. But I don't believe for a moment that the U. S. would have built the bomb without ''both'' of them. And I think that afterwards the nation was ''shockingly'' ungrateful to '''both''' of them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Yes, the article needs a little more balance. I don't think that there is any doubt that Oppenheimer's strong communist connections made him a security risk. Whether or not he was actually a Soviet spy is a matter of some debate. Some stuff should be moved to a separate article on the atomic bomb. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:16, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: !!! Who has ever suggested that he was a Soviet spy? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:07, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Apparently Lewis Strauss thought he was, but he was wrong:

:::: "It was clear to Strauss that there must have been someone else at Los Alamos during the war passing secrets, besides Klaus Fuchs. And indeed there was: a young physicist named Theodore Hall, an American physicist. But Strauss didn't know about Hall at that point, and he thought it must have been Oppenheimer." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/filmmore/reference/interview/rhodes12.html] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Observations of lack of accomplishment do not need a citation. For example, "Bill Clinton did not advance the field of physics." No citation is possible or necessary for that. Ditto for similar observations about Oppenheimer on this content page.

: By the way, the editors at Wikipedia misunderstand and misuse citations. It adds nothing to cite the opinion of a journalist, for example. That's not an authority in any meaningful sense, and the journalist would be the first to admit it. Yet most citations on Wikipedia, including its entry about Conservapedia, are to journalist opinions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: I'm not going to deal with the comment about journalists (I think it's wrong but that's not germane to this discussion), but while I agree that about the Clinton reference there is a major difference- this was Oppenheimer's area of work. To say that someone in physics did little physics work needs a citation, just as if one said that Clinton did little to advance foreign policy one would need a citation. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Suggestion that JRO was a Soviet spy? There was a book by a Russian named Sudoplatov in the 1990s that claimed JRO was a spy. The Venona papers describe a high-level Manhattan Project atomic spy (besides Fuchs and Hall) who has never been identified. Some people suggest JRO. JRO has been shown to have Communist connection over and above what was revealed in his security clearance hearings. A collaborator of his published a book a few years ago saying that JRO was secretly a member of the Communist Party while at Berkeley, and even ghost-wrote some articles for the Party. JRO's anti-American behavior and politics were also very suspicious. I am basing this on memory, so some details may not be right. Maybe the article should just give both views -- that JRO was a genius and hero to the Left, and he was an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:::: This is precisely the sort of dichotmous thinking that Conservapedia has been criticized for, it is possible to see Oppenheimer as something other than a "genius and hero" and "an overrated physicist wannabe and no-good Commie fellow traveler" there exists views in between. Furthermore, the level of accomplishment is orthogonal to the matter of how much he sympathized with the communists. He could have been a communist and a genius or could have been a management hack who was falsely accused of communist sympathies. Incidentally, there are many sources against the view that he was just a manager with little in the way of actual physics contributions. For example, quoting from [http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/joppenheimer.html]"He did not direct from the head office. He was intellectually and even physically present at each decisive step. He was present in the laboratory or in the seminar rooms, when a new effect was measured, when a new idea was conceived. It was not that he contributed so many ideas or suggestions; he did so sometimes, but his main influence came from something else. It was his continuous and intense presence, which produced a sense of direct participation in all of us; it created that unique atmosphere of enthusiasm and challenge that pervaded the place throughout its time" at minimum thus a citation claiming his lack of influence is sorely needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:::::Here is the document from Russian Archives, [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F6F1-96B6-175C-9170648C02EA02F8&sort=Collection&item=Post%20Stalin%20succession%20struggle Letter from Boris Merkulov (USSR People’s Commissar for State Security) to Lavrenty Beria (USSR People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs)], 10/02/1944, excerpted,
::::::''In 1942 one of the leaders of scientific work on [uranium] in the USA, Professor Oppenheimer while being an unlisted (nglastny) member of the apparat of Comrade Browder] [handwritten] informed us about the beginning of work.''
:::::''"informed us"''. The arguement was, and will remain "wittingly or unwittingly"? I could define "unlisted" more precisely, but I suggest this is valid material for direct inclusion without comment or judgement on the question of "wittingly or unwittingly", as that can be handled later with a disclaimer when the question arises. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: Joshua, Oppenheimer was a high-level manager of the project. I don't care how many labs he was in, or how "continuous and intense" his "presence" was, he was still a manager.

:: By the way, with 3-4 communist spies leaking secrets from the place, your argument about Oppy's "continuous and intense presence" doesn't help his defense that somehow he didn't know!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:00, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Really? I think you a) don't appreciate how many concerns there were directly during World War II other than dealing with communist spies. Heck for most of the time during the Manhattan project, we were allies with the Germans. Also, there was little to know restriction on what the scientists were allowed to do- security was mainly in the military hands not Oppenheimer's and the security that did exist often resembled something out of Catch 22. You should read what Feynman wrote about his time in the project. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:04, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Another concern ==
Related to the dichotomy issue above, this wasn't a liberal v. conservative split over Teller's testimony. It was a much more complicated breakdown and calling it liberal v. conservative is a gross oversimplication. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: Yes, it was loyal Americans v Commie fellow travelers. Are there any non-commies who think that the case against JRO was insufficient to revoke his security clearance? There are liberals who sympathized with JRO. Not many really defended JRO, but a lot attacked Teller. I think that the article is correct that a lot held a grudge against Teller. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:54, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, to the first point, whether there were "non-commies" who thought that Oppenheimer should have kept his security clearance, yes. To the second point, what you said above all the more helps demonstrate the complexity of the situation. Some people attacked Teller for reasons that were only peripherally related to the Oppenheimer matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:04, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Back then, Joshua, conservatives were anti-communists and liberals were not. The simplification is quite accurate. Conservatives backed Teller; liberals backed Oppy. Conservatives revoked Oppy's security clearance; liberals restored it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:00, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Again, inaccurate for a variety of reasons. Especially if you look at the political views of the scientists who actually spoke up. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:04, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Also, a lot of the treatement of Oppenheimer had nothing to do with communism, communism was an excuse by a number of people who didn't like him. I strongly recommend that anyone who hasn't done so read Priscilla McMilla's "The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer And the Birth of the Modern Arms Race" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:00, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:I just looked at the WP article on Teller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller], and it has stuff like this:
:: The most damning piece of testimony, as seen by contemporaries and later historians, was his statement that: "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance."
: I don't know what would be "damning" about that; JRO had his hearing and the authorities ended up agreeing with Teller. This is another example of WP bias that it uses unnamed sources like this to damn Teller. If there are people who really say that someone could dishonestly maintain commie connections (as JRO did) and still keep a security clearance, then they should be named. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Actually, it was pretty daming because it showed how Teller didn't care much about whether or not Oppenheimer had done anything, all that mattered was his belief that Oppenheimer lacked sufficient "wisdom" (whatever that meant). In any event, "damining" is not NPOV, so I've replaced that. Now, it would very much help matters if instead of attacking problems on Wikipedia you addressed the concerns brought up here. The Wikipedia article could claim that Teller was an alien nazi from a moon of Saturn and it wouldn't alter in the slightest what our article here should have. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:10, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: I read that as Teller referring to the "wisdom" of the authorities, not Teller.
::: I am not an expert on this. It sure seems to me that there was ample evidence against JRO. But it doesn't matter what I think. If there are really noteworthy people who thought that people like JRO should have had security clearances, then go ahead and cite them and their reasoning. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Teller was not even cited in the decision to revoke Oppy's clearance. The real reason that liberals loathed Teller went beyond what he said at Oppy's congressional hearings. I think other witnesses and congressmen said worse. The real reason for ostracizing Teller is that he was ... a conservative. Teller supported the H-bomb. Wikipedia overplays the congressional hearins as the sole basis for ostracizing Teller.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Does McMilla argue that JRO was improperly stripped of his security clearance? If so, on what grounds? If not, how is her book relevant? If JoshuaZ wants to write a paragraph on why McMilla thought that lying commie fellow travelers should have security clearances, go ahead. I'd be interested. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory of Fielding==
I have recovered the Theory of Fielding from the WaybackMachine [http://web.archive.org/web/20050204173143/http://www.tof.blogspot.com/#SO Theory of Fielding - Set O - Oppenheimer] and sent HB Laes, its author an email to see if its still available on the web or if he would like to contribute. Here's a litle bit about Laes. [http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/bomb_folder/bombgena-l.html] Paval Sudaplatov and Herbert Romerstein are also two other excellent sources for this and a few other articles. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
==Sudaplatov==
Here is the actual text from p. 172 of Paval Sudaplatov's ''Special Tasks'':

:"Oppenheimer, Fermi, Szilard, and Szilard's secretary were often quoted in the NKVD files from 1942 to 1945 as sources for information on the development of the first American atomic bomb. It is in the record that on several occasions they agreed to share information on nuclear weapons with Soviet scientists. At first they were motivated by fear of Hitler; they believed that the Germans might produce the first atomic bomb. Then the Danish physicist Niels Bohr helped strengthen their own inclinations to share nuclear secrets with the world academic community. By sharing their knowledge with the Soviet Union, the chance of beating the Germans to the bomb would be increased.

J. Robert Oppenheimer

2007-03-24T01:37:25Z

Chantillylace: J. Robert Oppenheimer moved to J. Robert Oppenheimer is a Benny tied to a Tree

Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) was an American theoretical physicist who was a manager in the [[Manhattan Project]] in [[Los Alamos]], [[New Mexico]]. He was a bright student and popular teacher, but his contributions to science were not comparable to those of a the leading Manhattan Project scientists.<ref>such as [[Hans Bethe|Bethe]], [[Neils Bohr|Bohr]], [[Enrico Fermi|Fermi]], [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]], [[Willard Libby|Libby]], and [[Eugene Wigner|Wigner]], who won Nobel prizes.</ref> The media generally liked Oppenheimer's politics and gave him credit as "the man who built the atomic bomb."

Oppenheimer managed the laboratory at Los Alamos from 1943 to 1945. As described by the United States Department of Energy's historical account:<ref>http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/basic_research.htm</ref>

:J. Robert Oppenheimer shouldered burdens both large and small, managing the numerous mundane matters such as living quarters, mail censorship, salaries, promotions, and other "quality of life" issues that were inevitable in an intellectual pressure-cooker with few social amenities. J. Robert Oppenheimer Oppenheimer relied on a group of advisers to help him keep the "big picture" in focus, while a committee made up of Los Alamos group leaders provided day-to-day communications between divisions.

Three to five scientists under Oppenheimer's supervision leaked secret information about the atomic bomb to the communist Soviet Union. These include [[Klaus Fuchs]], [[Theodore Hall]], and [[David Greenglass]].<ref>http://www.lanl.gov/history/wartime/spies.shtml</ref> Secret Soviet Union documents reviewed in the 1990s reveal two more spies, code-named Quantum and [[Perseus]] or Pers, who were also at Los Alamos during Oppenheimer's tenure. These spies have never been identified, and one could have been Oppenheimer himself.<ref>''Id.'' (without specifying Oppenheimer as [[Perseus]])</ref>.

Oppenheimer's best-known scientific contribution was to suggest a limit to the size of neutron stars. Larger neutron stars would collapse into [[black holes]] according to the theory of relativity.

Oppenheimer lived in Berkeley, [[California]], and socialized with close [[communism|communist]] friends. When Oppenheimer opposed development of the [[hydrogen bomb]] in the 1950s, an investigation into whether he lied about his communist connections resulted in the revocation of his security clearance.<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/opp06.htm</ref> This infuriated [[liberal]]s who then never forgave [[conservative]] scientists like [[Edward Teller]] for having testified against Oppenheimer, even though Teller was not cited in the decision to revoke Oppenheimer's security clearance.

Oppenheimer helped [[Congress]] draft the first laws covering the use and control of atomic energy.

In 1963, his clearance was reinstated by President Johnson. In the same year, the Atomic Energy Commission awarded him the [[Enrico Fermi]] Award.<ref>[http://dsd.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/SEABORG-ARCHIVE/index/96B05399.html J. Robert Oppenheimer receiving the AEC Enrico Fermi Award], photograph and description, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory]</ref>

The 2002 book "Sacred Secrets" produced documents from the FBI and the Soviet NKVD that allegedly prove the Oppenheimer's Communist Party membership and his ardent advocacy of sharing nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/165830.shtml]</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F6F1-96B6-175C-9170648C02EA02F8&sort=Collection&item=Post%20Stalin%20succession%20struggle Merkulov to Beria], 2 October 1944.