Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T18:15:42Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

IMO, some of the answers - and their evaluation - are a little bit problematic.

*The Great War was not a suburbian soccer match where the mothers of the players pretend not to keep score. Germany asked for an armistice. Unconditionally. Austria-Hungary, too. To stay in the picture above: that's the diplomatic equivalent of crying uncle. Yes, they have lost. Big time.

*Italy hadn't entered the war on the side of the central forces. It choose to enter the war on side of the allied forces in 1915. The history of Italians alliances is quite complex, but it seems to be not fair to implicate that they ''switched sides during the war''. They just picked their team late. BTW, the musings of B. Mussolini were as important to these processes as were the opinions of H. Clinton to the War in the Gulf: just another flip-flopping politician of the opposition

*Russia: you accepted answers like
:*''The Allies won the “Great War” or World War I in 1918''
:*''The Triple Entente won World War I. ''
:*''The Allies (Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I. '' and even
:*''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''
FYI: Russia wasn't represented in Versailles, it isn't counted with the victors. The ''triple entente'' was dead in 1918. And Russia ''lost'' more land and population than any other country.

For educational purposes, you should look at a map of Europe before - and after the Great War. The shifted frontiers give a clue which countries had lost - and which hadn't.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 11:03, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, your rant is a criticism looking for a flaw. The problem is that you haven't found a flaw. I don't think any of my students tried to use a word "suburbian" either, as you do.

: If you can identify a specific error, then let's see it. So far, you haven't been able to do that, although obviously you are trying very hard.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:04, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::suburban / suburbian - sorry for the ''i'': Your students have good spelling skills. Color me impressed.

::However: A student should be able - after taking your lesson - to identify the parties of the Great War. As you outlined, the outcome of the war lead to many grudges held by different nations, and these grudges played an important role in the time to come.

::And I don't want to talk about subtleties like Canada, New Zealand and Australia not being '''colonies''' at the time of the war, but '''dominions'''.

::No, it's about the part two of the major participants had in this war.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:20, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Clement, failing to find a specific error, you resort to vague generalities, questionable opinion, and debatable semantics (e.g., a dominion is subservient to the British monarch as a colony is).

::: Keep looking. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I don't understand you: You are lambasting me for inserting an ''i'' in ''suburban'', but you don't have a problem with the sentence ''''Britain, France, Russia, and America gained more power and land than any other country, but they all lost a large amount of men in World War I.''? That's part of a ''fantastic analysis''...
:::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:06, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: If you think that statement is wrong, then which country do you think gained more land than that group? Again, your lack of specificity reflects a lack of identifiable errors. And surely you don't doubt the loss of life by those four nations, or their gain in power.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: '''Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.'''
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 17:27, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: That took some time. A propos ''vague generalities'': Do you see the problem with this sentence ''The Allies (Britain, France, '''Russia''', Italy, Japan, and United States) won World War I '' now? It is less problematic than the statement discussed above, but as the teacher, you should at a comment to this one, too.
:::::: Or this ''good answer'': ''In World War One, no one really “won” in the true sense of the word; '''the frontiers remained much as they had been before the war''' .''
:::::: What about Poland, the Baltic States, the ''Free town of Danzig'' - the whole Ottoman Empire dissolved! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:52, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you misunderstand or overlook the meaning of the word "frontier". You also seem excessively critical. Are you as critical of [[liberals]], or this yet another example of a [[double standard]] common among liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:30, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::*I referred to frontiers as ''a border between two countries''<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frontier</ref>. After the Great War, the frontiers between many existing states were shifted ( Germany - Belgium, France and Denmark, Austria - Italy, Bulgaria - Romania), others were created anew. Which other meaning of the word ''frontier'' do you think was used?
::::::::*I'm discussing entries with editors on this site. I haven't encountered any liberal here, but I would be as resolute in a discussion with him as I'm with you.
::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Canada a colony during WWI? ==

Clement claimed that Canada was not a colony of Britain during WWI, but everything I've seen demonstrates that Canada was not yet independent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

*You are completely correct, Andy.

<blockquote>
"It was the First World War that accelerated the process to independence. The major colonies played a role of such magnitude that they no longer could be considered mere colonies of Great Britain. 
The international status of Canada evolved rapidly in the post-World War period: in '''1919''', Canada was one of the signers of the Treaty of Versailles and was elected as an independent member of the League of Nations. '''In 1926''', the Balfour resolution was adopted at the Imperial Conference. Arthur Balfour presented this resolution to the Imperial conference of the self-governing dominions. In it Great Britain recognized that the Dominions were "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations".
'''Thus, by 1931, Canada and the other Dominions had become "autonomous communities...equal in status" to Great Britain."''' [http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/canada-independence.htm]
</blockquote>

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:32, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy I think that you have entirely missed his point. Clement sought to draw a distinction between the status of colony and that of dominion. He didn't say that Canada was independent. I think his point was that Canada was more properly referred to as a dominion at the time. Whether that is a distinction of any significance I don't know. I note that he referred to the issue as a subtlety and said that he did not wish to raise the point. Obviously the far more significant issue for him was the characterisation of Russia's post-war situation. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 19:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well, clearly Canada's legal status, during World War I was that of a colony, and by 1931 it was considered autonomous with the Balfour resolution being implemented. It is too picky to quibble over public perceptions, rather than the information I gave above, detailing the legal definition, and that is it was certainly not an autonomous dominion prior to 1930. If not that, it was a colony, and by any other name, it still was one. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:08, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::TK, I think you may not have understood your own quote. The quote does not draw the distinction that you appear to suggest, between British controlled colonies and independent dominions. Dominions may or may not be independent. Your quote merely says that by 1931 the dominions had become autonomous communities. That is not why they were called dominions. Canada had used the dominion title [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Canada_and_Confederation since 1867] without gaining any extra autonomy or new powers with the title change. I suspect that might have been what Clement was talking about (aboot?). I think that Andy may have made the same mistake, equating the dominion title with independence. I believe that the process is slightly more subtle than that with dominion standing somewhere in between colony and independence. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 20:53, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Edmund, do a search on Google on: Canada colony "World War I". Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I. The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI. Yet Clement suggested that this was a mistake in my teaching. Someone who insists that someone else is wrong should at least have his facts right, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: FWIW, I did a quick Google, and found that Canada became a self-governing dominion of the British Empire in 1867. [http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada] The first Canada Day, known then as Dominion Day, was celebrated on July 1st, 1867. [http://www.imagescanada.ca/r1-250-e.html] However, it's not clear whether Canada had a clear-cut specific moment of independence from the British Empire, as discussed [http://www.filibustercartoons.com/dominion.htm here] and [http://www.answers.com/topic/canada-day here], and [http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/d/do/dominion.html here] or [http://www.indopedia.org/Dominion.html#Phasing-out_of_the_term_in_Canada here]. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:04, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

*I didn't claim that Canada, Australia or New Zealand were fully independent during the Great War. But the correct label for these entities in 1914 was ''dominion'' and not ''colony''.
*''Endless sites refer to Canada as a colony during World War I.'' You can't trust everything you find in the internet - even if it seems to be a popular choice.
*''The term "dominion" is obscure at best; Canada was a colony of Britain during WWI.'' Canadians may beg to differ: ''The name Dominion of Canada was adopted during confederation in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans).''<ref>[[Canada]]</ref>
Anyway, it's not an important point as Canada doesn't take a prominent place in your lectures - it is just mentioned a few times:

*[[World_History_Lecture_Five|Lecture 5]]: ''Russia today is by far the largest country in the world in land mass, having almost twice the area of the second-largest country (Canada). ''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eight|Lecture 8]]: ''From France, Jacques Cartier discovered Canada and the Mississippi Basin, including Louisiana in 1534 and 1541.''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eight|Lecture 8]]: ''Britain gained both Canada and India as a result of the Seven Years War, but lost the American colonies two decades later in the Revolutionary War. ''

*[[World_History_Lecture_Ten|Lecture 10]]: ''Canada achieved effective independence (as a Dominion within the British Empire) in 1867, but still remained within the British empire (Newfoundland remained a British territory and did not join Canada until 1949).'' '''nota bene''': here, you state that it became a effectively independet dominion. So, the term ''dominion'' shouldn't be ''obscure at best'' to your students.

*[[World_History_Lecture_Eleven|Lecture 11]]: ''For example, Britain drew upon its colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to supply a failed Gallipoli campaign, which sought to forge a supply line to Russia. '' '''nota bene''': colony again

*[[World_History_Lecture_Twelve|Lecture 12]]: ''By the middle of 1940 a real world war had begun again. On one side were the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. On the other side where the Allied Powers of Great Britain and its colonies (commonwealth), the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, France and its colonies, and potentially the United States and the Soviet Union. '' '''nota bene''': here, the reader gets the impression that Australia, Canada and New Zealand weren't part of the commonwealth...

You stated that I ''I seem to be excessively critical''. May I observe that you seem to be quite opinionated? How many edits did it take to drive home my point that ''Russia didn't win the Great War''? And after a lengthy - rather inquisitive - discussion, you seem to concede the point. But you don't do so on the page where the discussion was held, but elsewhere [http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Homework_Eleven_Answers_-_Student_One].
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:44, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

*Properly so, the conduct of ''students'' is expected to be different from ''instructors'', ClementB. Your conduct is increasingly that of a "wiki lawyer" or inquisitor, rather than a student's, and rather pedantic as well. Discussion and vigorous debate are part of the academic process, and I well remember enduring 6 total years of it in college. However there is a huge difference between that vigorous debate and picayune disputes over tense or what the word "is" is. You are demanding of Mr. Schlafly a degree of self-explanation and preciseness that would never be tolerated by professor's on the campuses of Harvard, Yale or Stanford. Collegiate discourse is invited by Mr. Schlafly, from what I have observed the past several years. But when the usual student questioning turns to being barely civil, with a definite "gotcha" aim, the student stops being that, and becomes merely a common obstructionist or, in the common vernacular, a troll. Such activity actually impedes the learning process, whereby the class becomes a vehicle for discussing the class content and teaching methods, rather than allowing everyone to learn the intended material. I hope you take my points here to heart, because you will be the beneficiary, not me. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:28, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement, I'd just ask you if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past. The answer is almost certainly "no". And realizing that creates an opportunity for you to open your mind the way that the [[Prodigal Son]] did when he finally admitted that he would be far better off as the lowest servant on his father's estate than as his own arrogant master who always insisted he must somehow be right.

:Put another way, Clement, how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:35, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''TK''': Wrong information impedes the learning process. I try to correct wrong statements. Yes, I'm an advocate of my points, as they tend to be attacked and ignored at first. I don't claim to be a collegiate of Aschlafly. But I'm not ignorant on the subjects under discussion, neither: I've studied history. My edits have shown to any open-minded reader that I'm well informed at topics like the history of Europe.
::'''Aschlafly''': To correct some obvious errors has proven to be a cumbersome task. And it is a little bit frustrating to get questioned on my motivation when we should discuss the facts. The motives of the [[Prodigal Son]] weren't questioned by his father, he was glad to accept him back and he showed him that he was welcomed.
::Nit-picking? No. Accurate. We most certainly stress different points: for me, the role of Russia is crucial to the history of Europe, though not beneficial.
::So, my main point in the discussion above was to show the quite important point that '''Russia didn't win the Great War'''. That is well-known, and it shouldn't be necessary to invest the energy I had to just to get it accepted at last.
::But alas, it is accepted. So I'll turn my attention to other questions. And I will go on to try to correct statements which seem to be wrong to me.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:58, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''Afterthought''': First: I think we all can agree that especially the purely educational entries to this site are to be held to the highest standard: what you learn in your school-days represents what you take for ''common knowledge'', and it is seldom questioned afterward. So, misconceptions should be avoided. Therefore, I don't understand that being critical is seen to be questionable. Aschlafly, to paraphrase you from [[Talk:World History Lecture Eleven|here]]: Surely, you don't think your that lectures are perfect? There is always room for improvement, even / especially if it is marginal.
::Second: We are all here to teach and be taught, the frontier between ''pupils'' and ''teachers'' is fuzzy at best.
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:31, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Clement, I asked you two simple questions above: (1) "if you've ever been so nit-picky about any teacher or textbook you've had in the past" and (2) "how many hours and weeks and years of your own time have you donated to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them?" You didn't answer them. Surely you're at least capable of answering those simple questions. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:50, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::#yes, I have always been a stickler for precision. In class, I would have pointed out a blunder like enumerating Russia with the winners of the Great War at once, while I would have commented on a minor question of taste (clearly, dominion is preferable to colony) afterward. In my experience, the better teachers could answer my critique - or at least, postponed a discussion - while other teachers took refuge in sarcasm or distraction. As for textbooks: I wrote to a couple of textbook editors. In my experience, the answers were always thankful, to the point and explanatory: either, they promised to rectify things in future editions, or, they explained at length - and fully satisfactory - their choice of words. None of them ever tried to play hide-and-seek.
::::#at the moment, more than thirty hours a week: I'm a teacher (History, Math) in Germany.
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Clement, I don't believe for a moment that you "donate" "more than thirty hours a week" "to guiding teenagers to good colleges and careers, and away from the addictions and depressions that plague so many of them." Perhaps you'd like to change your answer to something more credible.

::::: Losing credibility, your claim that you "wrote to a couple of textbook editors" also fails to persuade. If you really did that, then you could have easily and quickly provided the details of who, why, when, etc.

::::: Nearly every one of your postings here includes a puerile, sneering remark. You're almost certainly a [[liberal]] who's here to push your misguided ideology rather than genuinely help anyone learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:04, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::Every teacher will tell you that he donates ''more than thirty hours a week'' to his pupils. It's up to you to believe it or not - most would take it ''cum grano salis''.

::::::You didn't ask for details. I answered your questions. You didn't answer mine.

::::::I may have lost credibility in your eyes. I'm still right on the facts - and you don't argue the facts, do you? Russia still lost the Great War, didn't it? Did the facts (which I have to repeat over and over to get them through to you) lose credibility?

::::::Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that getting the facts right would help everyone to learn.

::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 10:21, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you've lost credibility for me. I don't believe you've complained to a single textbook editor, as you claim (without details), and I don't believe that you're a teacher in Germany. Not many German teachers post on the internet in early morning hours there, as you have. Perhaps you're an aspiring German actor? You do persist in your childish snide remarks in nearly every posting; you might try pursuing an acting career in sarcastic comedy, though I doubt you'll be very successful at it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:40, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I made my first complain to a textbook editor when I was in seventh grade - after talking with my history teacher. That's some time ago, believe it or not.
:::::::: Maybe there are not many teachers with my posting habits, but there is at least one...
:::::::: Your speculations about my persons don't change the facts, e.g., that Russia has lost the Great War.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 10:46, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps a Freudian slip, Clement? "My persons," plural? Which person are you pretending to be now? I think we're getting close to a [[Parthian shot]] by you. Make it a good one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:56, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Andy, as a part-time teacher working in Austria, I'd just like to point out that this time zone is six hours ahead of the East Coast. So our "early morning hours" would correlate to around 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. your time. I've looked at ClementB's contribution log, and couldn't help but notice that his normal editing habits are during the evening time here, with the latest usually being around midnight (18:00 eastern), and an occasional few being posted right before the site closes at 6 a.m. German time. Perhaps a few around lunchtime (right after CP opens for editing). This doesn't seem inconsistent with a teacher's schedule, does it?

::::::::Have a nice day and God Bless. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 13:02, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

To sum up:
#We want to present the precise relationship between Canada and any other country such as Great Britain which had (partial) sovereignty over it.
#Then we want to pick a term that denotes that relationship. (I personally am unsure whether "[[colony]]" will be that term.

Didn't most of the [[British Empire]] dissolve (or loosen) into a sort of [[commonwealth]] sometime during the period 1850 to 1960? I daresay the current flags of many of these former parts of the empire incorporate the [[Union Jack]] in their design. Let's learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, I don't believe in Freud's theories, but I do believe in typos - thank you for hinting me to them. And I don't share your interest in Parthian shots. As the post of Ed Poor indicates, we all could learn more if there would be more interest in the ''message'' but the ''messenger''...
:And what is the message? Your headline of this section asks the question ''Canada a colony during WWI?''. I've added some details to the article [[history of Canada]] to help to answer your question. And what is the answer?
:*Yes: ''colloquially'' speaking, Canada was a colony. But that's just imprecise...
:*No: The British Empire consisted of the U.K., the self-governing dominions, the colonies, and India with its special status. The degree of self-government which Canada had achieved in 1914 doesn't seem to be fittingly described with the term ''colony''.
:And why do I repeat in every single post the statement that ''Russia didn't win the Great War''? Because you never answered to my edit above: ''What land did Russia gain? What power? It became place of a civil war, and Poland defeated in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920! To be as specific as it seems to be necessary: Russia didn't gain power due to the Great War. Russia did lose land due to the Great War.''
:And could you explain how I ''misunderstand or overlook the meaning of the word "frontier"''? Thanks.
:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:15, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== References ==
<references />

History of Canada

2009-04-29T17:49:31Z

ClementB: /* Confederation */

This article covers the '''History of Canada''' from 1600 to the 1990s. For recent developments see [[Canada]].

== History ==
===Confederation===
[[Image:CANADA1865.jpg|thumb|400px|Canada on the eve of federation]] On July 1, 1867, four of the British North American colonies ([[Nova Scotia]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Quebec]], and [[Ontario]] were united as the ''Dominion of Canada'' ([[British North America Act]]), and so, Canada was officially created. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, [[John A Macdonald|Sir John A. Macdonald]], was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.

Since 1909, there existed a Department of External Affairs.

The [[Great War]] furthered official and unofficial independence. Prime minister Sir [[Robert Borden]] was a member of the Imperial War Cabinet, and he greatly influenced the Imperial War Resolution IX from 1917, which stated that the dominions were ''autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth''.

Canada had entered the war in 1914 when the U.K. declared war an behalf of the British Empire. At the peace conference of Versailles in 1918, it was on equal footing with the other victorious nations.

===Since 1970===
====1982 Constitution====
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. Liberal Prime Minister [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.
====1993 Election====
The 1993 Canadian general election was an extraordinary one that saw the collapse of a once stable two-party-plus system and the emergence of a less stable one-party dominant system. The governing [[Progressive Conservative party]] went down to the most crushing defeat of any governing party in Canadian electoral history, and two new parties displaced two old ones. A new consrvative party based in [[Alberta]], the [[Reform Party]], captured the political right. The strategic interests of both of the two new parties, Reform and the independent [[Bloc Québécois]] (active only in Quebec), combined to undermine the integrative role that Canadian political parties have traditionally served. <ref>Neil Nevitte, et al. "Electoral Discontinuity: The 1993 Canadian Federal Election." ''International Social Science Journal'' 1995 47(4): 583-599. 0020-8701 </ref>
==Further reading==
* [http://www.biographi.ca/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''] (1966-2008), thousands of scholarly biographies of notables who died by 1930
* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bumsted,J.M. ''The Peoples of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History''; and ''The Peoples of Canada: A Post-Confederation History.'' (2004). college textbook
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel, eds. ''Foundations: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History.'' and ''Nation and Society: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History''. Pearson Longman, 2004. articles by scholars
* Creighton, Donald; ''A History of Canada: Dominion of the North'' 1958, 626 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9444590 online edition], textbook
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries
* Desmond Morton. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Prentice, Alison ''et al''. ''Canadian Women: a history'' (1996, 2nd edition)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Riendeau, Roger. ''A Short History of Canada'' (2nd ed 2007)
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
==Specialized bibliography==
This is a bibliography of major works on the History of Canada.
* [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showlist.cgi?lists=H-Canada long scholarly book reviews at H-CANADA]

==Surveys and reference==
* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1''The Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] the best starting point
* [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''](1966-2006), thousands of scholarly biographies of those who died by 1930
* Beck, J. Murray. ''Pendulum of Power; Canada's Federal Elections'' (1968)
* Buckner, Phillip. ''Canada and the British Empire''(The Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-British-Empire-History-Companion/dp/019927164X/ref=sr_1_118?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208721163&sr=1-118 excerpt and text search]
* Bumsted, J.M. ''The Peoples of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History''; and ''The Peoples of Canada: A Post-Confederation History.'' : Oxford University Press, 2004.
* Bumsted, J.M. ''A History of the Canadian peoples'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.ca/History-Canadian-Peoples-Bumsted/dp/0195423496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190769220&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' Pearson Education Canada, 2003.
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel, eds. ''Foundations: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History.'' and ''Nation and Society: Readings in Post-Confederation Canadian History''. Pearson Longman, 2004. articles by scholars
* Creighton, Donald; ''A History of Canada: Dominion of the North'' 1958, 626 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9444590 online edition], textbook
* Dickason, Olive Patricia. ''Canada's First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples from Earliest Times'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Canadas-First-Nations-Founding-Earliest/dp/019541652X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209697419&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Gough, Barry M. ''Historical Dictionary of Canada'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Dictionary-Canada-Barry-Gough/dp/081083541X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209697419&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 short entries [http://www.amazon.ca/Oxford-Companion-Canadian-History/dp/0195415590/ref=pd_bbs_6/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190769220&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Military History of Canada'' (1999)
* Marsh, James C. ed. [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/''The Canadian Encyclopedia''] 4 vol 1985; also cd-rom editions
* Moogk, Peter. ''La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada a Cultural History'' (2000)
* Prentice, Alison ''et al''. ''Canadian Women: a history'' (1996, 2nd edition)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2003. 3rd edition.
* Rawlyk, G. A. ed .''The Canadian Protestant Experience'' (1994)
* Riendeau, Roger. ''A SHort History of Canada'' (2nd ed 2007)
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' Oxford U. Press, 1983. 843 pp.
* Wade, Mason. ''The French Canadians, 1760-1945'' (1955) 2 vol [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8474052 online edition]
*Pound, Richard W. ''Fitzhenry & Whiteside Book of Canadian Facts and Dates'', [http://www.fitzhenry.ca/ Fitzhenry & Whiteside], 2004. ISBN 1-55041-171-3

==Maps, exploration, environment==
* Colpitts, George. ''Game in the Garden: A Human History of Wildlife in Western Canada to 1940.'' (2002) 216pp.
* Dean, William G. Conrad Heidenreich, and Thomas F. McIlwraith. ''Concise Historical Atlas of Canada,'' (1998)
* Hayes, Derek. ''Historical Atlas of Canada: Canada's History Illustrated With Original Maps'' (2002)
* Matthews, Geoffrey J., and R. Louis Gentilcore eds. ''Historical Atlas of Canada: Volume II: The Land Transformed, 1800-1891'' (1993)
* Loo, Tina. ''States of Nature: Conserving Canada's Wildlife in the Twentieth Century.'' (2006) 290pp
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)

==to 1763==
* [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''](1966-2006), thousands of scholarly biographies of those who died by 1930
* Brecher, Frank W. ''Losing a Continent: France's North American Policy, 1753-1763'' (1998);;
* Dechêne, Louise. ''Habitants and Merchants in Seventeenth-Century Montreal'' (2003)
* Eccles, W. J. ''The Canadian Frontier, 1534-1760'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10657323 online edition]
* Eccles, W. J. ''Essays on New France'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Essays-New-France-W-Eccles/dp/0195405803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206177810&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gagnon, Serge. ''Quebec and Its Historians, 1840-1920.'' (1982). 161 pp.
* Greer, Allan ''The people of New France'' (1997)
* Havard, Gilles, and Cécile Vidal, "Making New France New Again: French historians rediscover their American past," ''Common-Place'' (July 2007) v 7 #4 [http://www.common-place.org/vol-07/no-04/harvard/ online version]
* Innis, Harold A. ''The Fur Trade in Canada'' (1930)
* Jaenen, Cornelius. ''Friend and Foe'' (1976) brief survey of French-Indian relations in the 16th & 17th centuries.
* Lanctot, Gustave. ''A History of Canada'' 3 vol Toronto. 1963. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3115015 Volume One: From its Origins to the Royal Régime, 1663; online], [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98311761 Volume Two: From the Royal Régime to the Treaty of Utrecht, 1663-1713, online]
* Moogk, Peter.; ''La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada a Cultural History'' (2000) to 1763 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/la-nouvelle-france-the-making-of-french-canada-a-cultural-history-by-peter-moogk.jsp online edition]
* Trigger, Bruce. ''Children of the Aataentsic: a history of the Huron people to 1660'' (1976)
* Trudel, Marcel. ''The Beginnings of New France 1524-1663'' (1973)

==1763-1867==
See also: [[War of 1812, Bibliography]]

* [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''](1966-2006), thousands of scholarly biographies of those who died by 1930
* Allen, Robert S. ''His Majesty's Indian allies: British Indian policy in the defence of Canada, 1774-1815'' (1992) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.01327 online at ACLS e-books]
* Beck, J. M. ''Joseph Howe'' (2 vols, 1962-63), i: Conservative Reformer 1804-1848; ii: The Briton Becomes Canadian 1848-1873.
* Careless, J. M. S. ''Brown of the Globe'' (2 vols, Toronto, 1959-63), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16321334 vol 1: ''The Voice of Upper Canada 1818-1859'']; vol 2: The Statesman of Confederation 1860-1880.
* Careless, J. M. S. ''The Union of the Canada: The Growth of Canadian Institutions 1841-1857'' (1968).
* Creighton, D. G. ''John A. Macdonald'' (2 vols, Toronto, 1952-55), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8107465 vol 1: The Young Politician]; ii, The Old Chieftain.
* Greer, Allan. ''The patriots and the people: the rebellion of 1837 in rural Lower Canada'' (1993)
* Loo, Tina. ''Making law, order, and authority in British Columbia, 1821-1871'' (1994)
* Martin, Ged. ''Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation, 1837-67'' (1995)
* Martin, Ged (ed.), ''The Causes of Canadian Confederation'' (Fredericton, 1990).
* Morton, W. L. ''The Critical Years: The Union of British North America 1857-1873'' (Toronto, 1964). standard survey
* Noël, Françoise. ''Family Life and Sociability in Upper and Lower Canada, 1780-1870.'' (2003) 384pp
* Sweeny, Alastair. ''George-Etienne Cartier: A Biography'' (1976).
* Wood, William. ''The War With the United States: A Chronicle of 1812,'' (1915) [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14582 online edition]
* Young, Brian, ''George-Etienne Cartier: Montreal bourgeois'' (1981)

==1867-1920==
* [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ ''The Dictionary of Canadian Biography''](1966-2006), thousands of scholarly biographies of those who died by 1930
* Armstrong, Elizabeth H. ''The Crisis of Quebec, 1914-1918'' (1937)
* Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. ''Canada 1900-1945''. University of Toronto Press, 1987, textbook
* Brown R. C. ''Robert Laird Borden: A Biography''. 2 vols. (1975, 1980).
* Brown R. C., and Ramsay Cook. ''Canada, 1896-1921 A Nation Transformed''. (1974). the standard survey
* Cook, Tim. "Quill and Canon: Writing the Great War in Canada," ''American Review of Canadian Studies,'' Vol. 35, 2005 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5012186682 online edition]
* Dafoe, J. W. ''Laurier: A Study in Canadian Politics'' (1922) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=7300862 online edition]
* Dickson, Paul Douglas. ''A Thoroughly Canadian General: A Biography of General H.D.G. Crerar'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Thoroughly-Canadian-General-Biography-H-D-G/dp/080200802X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206185168&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* English, John. ''The Decline of Politics: The Conservatives and the Party System 1901-20'' (1993)
* Granatstein, Jack, and J.M. Hitsman, ''Broken Promises: A History of Conscription in Canada'' (1977)
* Hou, Charles, and Cynthia Hou, eds. ''Great Canadian Political Cartoons, 1820-1914.'' (1997).
* Kaye, Lamb W. ''History of the Canadian Pacific Railway''. (1977).
* MacKenzie, David, ed. ''Canada and the First World War'' (2005) 16 essays by leading scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-First-World-War-Essays/dp/0802084451/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206184958&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond, and J. L. Granatstein. ''Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War 1914-1919'' (1989), the standard survey
* Neatby, H. Blair. ''Laurier and a Liberal Quebec: A Study in Political Management'' (1973) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8104462 online edition]
* Schull, Joseph. ''Laurier. The First Canadian'' (1965)
* Skelton, Oscar Douglas. ''Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier'' 2v (1921)
* Vance, Jonathan F. ''Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War'' (1997), cultural history; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54443997 online edition]
* Waite, P. B. ''Canada, 1874-1896'' (1971), standard history

==1921-1957==
* Allen, Ralph; ''Ordeal by Fire: Canada, 1910-1945,'' (1961), 492pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11922490 online edition]
* Bothwell, Robert, and William Kilbourn. ''C.D. Howe''. (1979).
* Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. ''Canada 1900-1945''. and ''Canada since 1945'' (2d. ed. 1987-1989), college textbook
* Bouchery, Jean. ''Canadian Soldier in World War II: From D-Day to VE-Day'' (2007)
* Copp, Terry. ''Cinderella Army: The Canadians in Northwest Europe, 1944-1945'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.ca/Cinderella-Army-Canadians-Northwest-19441945/dp/0802039251/ref=sr_1_47/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190769528&sr=8-47 excerpt and text search]
* Creighton, Donald. ''The Forked Road: Canada, 1939-1957'' (1976) standard survey
* Dawson, R.M. ''William Lyon Mackenzie King: A Political Biography''. Vol. 1: 1874-1923, (1958)
* Donaghy, Greg, ed. ''Canada and the Early Cold War, 1943-1957'' (1998) [http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/coldwar-en.asp online edition]
* Granatstein, J. L. ''Canada's War: The Politics of the Mackenzie King Government, 1939-1945'' (1975)
* Granatstein, J. L. ''The Politics of Survival: The Conservative Party of Canada 1939-45'' (1967)
* Hou, Charles, and Cynthia Hou. ''Great Canadian Political Cartoons, 1915 to 1945.'' (2002). 244pp
* McNaught, John K. ''A Prophet in Politics'' (1959), the standard biography of J. S. Woodsworth [http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-prophet-in-politics-a-biography-of-j-s-woodsworth-by-kenneth-mcnaught.jsp online edition]
* Neatby, H. Blair. ''The Politics of Chaos: Canada in the Thirties'' (1972)
* [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=64401314 Neatby, H. Blair. ''William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1924-1932: The Lonely Heights'' (1963)] standard biography
* [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=42440063 Neatby, H. Blair ''William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1932-1939: the Prism of Unity'' (1976)] standard biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=42440063 online edition]
* Roy, P., J.L. Granatstein, Masako Iino & Hiroko Takamura, ''Mutual Hostages: Canadians and Japanese During the Second World War'' (1990)
* Stacey, C. P. ''Arms, Men and Governments: The War Policies of Canada, 1939-1945'' (1970) standard survey
* Thompson, John H., and Allan Seager. ''Canada 1922-1939''. (1985). standard survey

==1957-2009==
* Bothwell, Robert, Ian Drummond, and John English. ''Canada since 1945'' (2d. ed. 1989). college textbook
* Clarkson, Stephen. ''Trudeau and Our Times''. (2 vol 1990-1994)
* Cohen, Andrew, J. L. Granatstein, eds. ''Trudeau's shadow: the life and legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau''. (1999).
* Couture, Claude, and Vivien Bosley. ''Paddling with the Current: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Etienne Parent, Liberalism, and Nationalism in Canada'' (1998)
* Granatstein, J. L. ''Canada 1957-1967: The Years of Uncertainty and Innovation''. (1986), advanced survey.
* Hillmer, Norman ed. ''Pearson: The Unlikely Gladiator''(1999)
* Igartua, Jose E. ''The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1945-1971.'' (2007) 285 pp. ISBN 978-0-7748-1088-3. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=70971185291973 online review from H-CANADA]
* Morton, Desmond. ''The New Democrats, 1961-1986: The Politics of Change'' (1986)
* Simpson, Jeffrey. ''Discipline of Power: The Conservative Interlude and the Liberal Restoration''. (1984).
* Smith, Denis. ''Rogue Tory: The Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker'' (1995).
* Story, Donald C., and R. Bruce Shepard, eds., ''The Diefenbaker Legacy: Canadian Politics, Law and Society Since 1957.'' Canadian Plains Proceedings, No. 30. Regina, Sask.: Canadian Plains Research Center, 1998.

==World Affairs==
* Buckner, Phillip. ''Canada and the British Empire''(The Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-British-Empire-History-Companion/dp/019927164X/ref=sr_1_118?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208721163&sr=1-118 excerpt and text search]
* James, Patrick, Nelson Michaud, and Marc J. O'Reilly, eds. ''Handbook of Canadian Foreign Policy.'' (2006). 610 pp ISBN 978-0-7391-1493-3. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=162121191172306 online review at H-CANADA]
* Molot, Maureen Appel, "Where Do We, Should We, Or Can We Sit? A Review of the Canadian Foreign Policy Literature", ''International Journal of Canadian Studies'' (Spring-Fall 1990).
* Nossal Kim Richard. ''The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy,'' 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall 1989
* Stacey C. P. ''Canada and the Age of Conflict, 1921-1948. Vol. 2. U. of Toronto Press, 1981. the standard history

===Relations with US===
* Bothwell, R. ''Canada and the United States'' (1992)
* Cuff, R. D. and Granatstein, J. L. ''Canadian-American Relations in Wartime: From the Great War to the Cold War.'' Toronto: Hakkert, 1975. 205 pp.
* J. L. Granatstein. ''Yankee Go Home?: Canadians and Anti-Americanism'' (1996)
* Kohn, Edward P. ''This Kindred People: Canadian-American Relations and the Anglo-Saxon Idea, 1895-1903'' (2005)
* Melnyk, George; ''Canada and the New American Empire: War and Anti-War'' University of Calgary Press, 2004, highly critical
* Miller, Ronnie ; ''Following the Americans to the Persian Gulf: Canada, Australia, and the Development of the New World Order'' Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1994
* Mount, Graeme S. and Edelgard Mahant, ''An Introduction to Canadian-American Relations'' (1989)
* Perras, Galen Roger ; ''Franklin Roosevelt and the Origins of the Canadian-American Security Alliance, 1933-1945: Necessary, but Not Necessary Enough'' Praeger Publishers, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27381179 online edition]
* Stairs, Denis, and Gilbert R. Winham, eds. ''The Politics of Canada's Economic Relationship with the United States' University of Toronto Press, 1985.
* Wilson, Robert R. and David R. Deener; ''Canada-United States Treaty Relations'' Duke University Press, 1963

===Cold War and UN===
* Balawyder, Aloysius. ''In the Clutches of the Kremlin: Canadian-East European Relations, 1945-1962.'' Columbia U. Press, 2000. 192 pp.
* Cavell, Richard, ed. ''Love, Hate, and Fear in Canada's Cold War'' (2004). 216 pp.
* Chapnick, Adam. ''The Middle Power Project: Canada and the Founding of the United Nations'' (2005).
* Clark-Jones, Melissa. ''A Staple State: Canadian Industrial Resources in Cold War.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1987. 260 pp.
* Dewitt David and John Kirton. ''Canada as a Principal Power.'' Toronto: John Wiley 1983
* Donaghy, Greg, ed. ''Canada and the Early Cold War, 1943-1957.'' Ottawa: Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Int. Trade, 1998. 255 pp.
* Eayrs James. ''In Defence of Canada''. 5 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1964- 1983. the standard history
* Escott, Reid. ''Time of Fear and Hope: The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1947-1949.'' McClelland and Stewart, 1977.
* J. L. Granatstein David Stafford. ''Spy Wars: Espionage and Canada from Gouzenko to Glasnost'' (1991)
* Jamie Glazov. ''Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev's Soviet Union'' 2003
* Holmes John W. ''The Shaping of Peace: Canada and the Search for World Order, 1943-1957,'' 2 vols. University of Toronto Press 1979, 1982
* Kirk,John M. and Peter McKenna; ''Canada-Cuba Relations: The Other Good Neighbor Policy'' University Press of Florida, 1997
* Maloney, Sean M. ''Canada and UN Peacekeeping: Cold War by Other Means.'' St. Catharines, Ont.: Vanwell, 2002. 265 pp.
* Matthews Robert O. and Cranford Pratt, eds. ''Human Rights in Canadian Foreign Policy.'' McGill-Queen's University Press 1988
* Mount, Graeme S. and Edelgard Mahant, ''Invisible and Inaudible in Washington: American Policies toward Canada during the Cold War'' (1999)
* Rochlin, James; ''Discovering the Americas: The Evolution of Canadian Foreign Policy towards Latin America'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/discovering-the-americas-the-evolution-of-canadian-foreign-policy-towards-latin-america-by-james-rochlin.jsp online edition]
* Sharnik, John. ''Inside the Cold War: An Oral History'' (1987)
* Smith, Denis. ''Diplomacy of Fear: Canada and the Cold War, 1941-1948.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1988. 259 pp.
* Stevenson, Brian J. R . ''Canada, Latin America, and the New Internationalism: A Foreign Policy Analysis, 1968-1990'' 2000
* Whitaker, Reg and Gary Marcuse. ''Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945-1957''. (1994)
* Whitaker, Reg and Hewitt, Steve. ''Canada and the Cold War.'' Lorimer, (2003). 256 pp.

==Regional==
===Quebec, after 1763===
see additional titles at [[Quebec, history]]
* [http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/index.htm L’Encyclopédie de l’histoire du Québec / ''The Quebec History Encyclopedia'' ed C. Belanger]
* Durflinger, Serge Marc. ''Fighting from Home: The Second World War in Verdun, Quebec.'' (2006) 296 pp. ISBN 978-0-7748-1261-0. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=303971160599175 online review]
* Linteau, Paul-André, René Durocher, Jean-Claude Robert, and Robert Chodos. ''Quebec: A History 1867-1929'' (1983) ''Quebec Since 1930'' (1991), standard 2 vol textbook.
* Manning, Helen Taft; ''The Revolt of French Canada, 1800-1835: A Chapter of the History of the British Commonwealth'' (1962) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-revolt-of-french-canada-1800-1835-a-chapter-of-the-history-of-the-british-commonwealth-by-helen-taft-manning.jsp online edition]
* McRoberts, Kenneth. ''Quebec: Social Change and Political Crisis.'' (1988).
* Rudin, Ronald. ''Making History in Twentieth-Century Quebec.'' (1997).300pp pp.; historiography ISBN 978-0-8020-7838-4 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=311831063875313 online review in H-CANADA]
* Saywell, John. ''The Rise of the Parti Québécois 1967-76'' (1977) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1347933 online edition]
* Trofimenkoff, Susan Mann. ''Dream of Nation: A Social and Intellectual History of Quebec'' (1982)
* Wade, Mason. ''The French Canadians, 1760-1945'' (1955), standard history, 1136pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8474052 online edition]

===Ontario===
* ''Celebrating One Thousand Years of Ontario's History: Proceedings of the Celebrating One Thousand Years of Ontario's History Symposium, April 14, 15, and 16, 2000.'' Ontario Historical Society, 2000. 343 pp.
* Baskerville, Peter A. ''Sites of Power: A Concise History of Ontario.'' Oxford U. Press., 2005. 296 pp. (first edition was ''Ontario: Image, Identity and Power,'' 2002). [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=112191064889930 online review]
* Berton, Pierre. ''Niagara: A History of the Falls.'' (1992).
* Hall, Roger; Westfall, William; and MacDowell, Laurel Sefton, eds. ''Patterns of the Past: Interpreting Ontario's History.'' Dundurn Pr., 1988. 406 pp.
* McGowan, Mark George and Clarke, Brian P., eds. ''Catholics at the "Gathering Place": Historical Essays on the Archdiocese of Toronto, 1841-1991.'' Canadian Catholic Historical Assoc.; Dundurn, 1993. 352 pp.
* McKillop, A. B. ''Matters of Mind: The University in Ontario, 1791-1951.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994. 716 pp.
* Mays, John Bentley. ''Arrivals: Stories from the History of Ontario.'' Penguin Books Canada, 2002. 418 pp.
* Noel, S. J. R. ''Patrons, Clients, Brokers: Ontario Society and Politics, 1791-1896.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1990.

====Ontario to 1869====
* Careless, J. M. S. ''Brown of the Globe'' (2 vols, Toronto, 1959-63), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16321334 vol 1: ''The Voice of Upper Canada 1818-1859'']; vol 2: The Statesman of Confederation 1860-1880.
* Clarke, John. ''Land Power and Economics on the Frontier of Upper Canada'' McGill-Queen's University Press (2001) 747pp.
* Cohen, Marjorie Griffin. ''Women's Work, Markets, and Economic Development in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1988. 258 pp.
*Craig, Gerald M ''Upper Canada: the formative years 1784-1841'' McClelland and Stewart, 1963, the standard history [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10369212 online edition]
* Dunham, Eileen ''Political unrest in Upper Canada 1815-1836'' McClelland and Stewart, 1963.
* Errington, Jane ''The Lion, the Eagle, and Upper Canada: A Developing Colonial Ideology'' McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987.
* Gidney, R. D. and Millar, W. P. J. ''Professional Gentlemen: The Professions in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994.
* Grabb, Edward, James Curtis, Douglas Baer; "Defining Moments and Recurring Myths: Comparing Canadians and Americans after the American Revolution" ''The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,'' Vol. 37, 2000
* Johnson, J. K. and Wilson, Bruce G., eds. ''Historical Essays on Upper Canada: New Perspectives.'' Carleton U. Press, (1975). . 604 pp.
* Keane, David and Read, Colin, ed. ''Old Ontario: Essays in Honour of J. M. S. Careless.'' Toronto: Dundurn, 1990.
* Kilbourn, William.; ''The Firebrand: William Lyon Mackenzie and the Rebellion in Upper Canada'' (1956) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99227317 online edition]
* Knowles, Norman. ''Inventing the Loyalists: The Ontario Loyalist Tradition and the Creation of Usable Pasts.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1997. 244 pp.
* Landon, Fred, and J.E. Middleton. ''Province of Ontario: A History'' (1937) 4 vol. with 2 vol of biographies
* Lewis, Frank and Urquhart, M.C. ''Growth and standard of living in a pioneer economy: Upper Canada 1826-1851'' Institute for Economic Research, Queen's University, 1997.
* McCalla, Douglas ''Planting the province: the economic history of Upper Canada 1784-1870'' (1993).
* McGowan, Mark G. ''Michael Power: The Struggle to Build the Catholic Church on the Canadian Frontier.'' (2005). 382 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=110121161297329 online review from H-CANADA]
* McNairn, Jeffrey L ''The capacity to judge: public opinion and deliberative democracy in Upper Canada 1791-1854'' (2000). [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=223721035847368 online review from H-CANADA]
* Oliver, Peter. ''"Terror to Evil-Doers": Prisons and Punishments in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' (1998). 575 pp. post 1835
* Rea, J. Edgar. "Rebellion in Upper Canada, 1837" ''Manitoba Historical Society Transactions'' Series 3, Number 22, 1965-66, historiography [http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/transactions/3/rebellion1837.shtml online edition]
* Reid, Richard M. ''The Upper Ottawa Valley to 1855.'' (1990). 354 pp.
* Rogers, Edward S. and Smith, Donald B., eds. ''Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations.'' (1994). 448 pp.
* Styran, Roberta M. and Taylor, Robert R., ed. ''The "Great Swivel Link": Canada's Welland Canal.'' Champlain Soc., 2001. 494 pp.
* Westfall, William. ''Two Worlds: The Protestant Culture of Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' (1989). 265 pp.
* Wilton, Carol. ''Popular Politics and Political Culture in Upper Canada, 1800-1850.'' (2000). 311pp

====Ontario since 1869====
* Azoulay, Dan. ''Keeping the Dream Alive: The Survival of the Ontario CCF/NDP, 1950-1963.'' (1997). 307 pp.
* Baskerville, Peter A. ''Ontario: Image, Identity, and Power.'' (2002). 256pp
* Cameron, David R. and White, Graham. ''Cycling into Saigon: The Conservative Transition in Ontario.'' (2000). 224 pp. Analysis of the 1995 transition from New Democratic Party (NDP) to Progressive Conservative (PC) rule in Ontario
* Comacchio, Cynthia R. ''Nations Are Built of Babies: Saving Ontario's Mothers and Children, 1900-1940.'' (1993). 390 pp.
* Cook, Sharon Anne. ''"Through Sunshine and Shadow": The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Evangelicalism, and Reform in Ontario, 1874-1930.'' (1995). 281 pp.
* Darroch, Gordon and Soltow, Lee. ''Property and Inequality in Victorian Ontario: Structural Patterns and Cultural Communities in the 1871 Census.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994. 280 pp.
* Devlin, John F. "A Catalytic State? Agricultural Policy in Ontario, 1791-2001." PhD dissertation U. of Guelph 2004. 270 pp. DAI 2005 65(10): 3972-A. DANQ94970 Fulltext: in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
* Evans, A. Margaret. ''Sir Oliver Mowat.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1992. 438 pp. Premier 1872-1896
* Fleming, Keith R. ''Power at Cost: Ontario Hydro and Rural Electrification, 1911-1958.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1992. 326 pp.
* Gidney, R. D. ''From Hope to Harris: The Reshaping of Ontario's Schools.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1999. 362 pp. deals with debates and changes in education from 1950 to 2000
* Gidney, R. D. and Millar, W. P. J. ''Inventing Secondary Education: The Rise of the High School in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 440 pp.
* Halpern, Monda. ''And on that Farm He Had a Wife: Ontario Farm Women and Feminism, 1900-1970.'' (2001). 234 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=121941071198404 online review from H-CANADA]
* Hines, Henry G. ''East of Adelaide: Photographs of Commercial, Industrial and Working-Class Urban Ontario, 1905-1930.'' London Regional Art and History Museum, 1989.
* Hodgetts, J. E. ''From Arm's Length to Hands-On: The Formative Years of Ontario's Public Service, 1867-1940.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1995. 296 pp.
* Houston, Susan E. and Prentice, Alison. ''Schooling and Scholars in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1988. 418 pp.
* Ibbitson, John. ''Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution.'' Prentice-Hall, 1997. 294 pp. praise for Conservatives
* Kechnie, Margaret C. ''Organizing Rural Women: the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, 1897-1910.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2003. 194 pp.
* Landon, Fred, and J.E. Middleton. ''Province of Ontario: A History'' (1937) 4 vol. with 2 vol of biographies
* Marks, Lynne. ''Revivals and Roller Rinks: Religion, Leisure and Identity in Late Nineteenth-Century Small-Town Ontario.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1996. 330 pp.
* Montigny, Edgar-Andre, and Lori Chambers, eds. ''Ontario since Confederation: A Reader'' (2000).
* Moss, Mark. ''Manliness and Militarism: Educating Young Boys in Ontario for War.'' (2001). 216 pp.
* Neatby, H. Blair and McEown, Don. ''Creating Carleton: The Shaping of a University.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2002. 240 pp.
* Ontario Bureau of Statistics and Research. ''A Conspectus of the Province of Ontario'' (1947) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99258086 online edition]
* Parr, Joy, ed. ''A Diversity of Women: Ontario, 1945-1980.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1996. 335 pp.
* Ralph, Diana; Régimbald, André; and St-Amand, Nérée, eds. ''Open for Business, Closed for People: Mike Harris's Ontario.'' Fernwood, 1997. 207 pp. leftwing attack on Conservative party of 1990s
* Roberts, David. ''In the Shadow of Detroit: Gordon M. McGregor, Ford of Canada, and Motoropolis.'' Wayne State U. Press, 2006. 320 pp.
* Santink, Joy L. ''Timothy Eaton and the Rise of His Department Store.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1990. 319 pp.
* Saywell, John T. ''"Just Call Me Mitch": The Life of Mitchell F. Hepburn.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1991. 637 pp. Biography of Liberal premier 1934-1942
* Schryer, Frans J. ''The Netherlandic Presence in Ontario: Pillars, Class and Dutch Ethnicity.'' Wilfrid Laurier U. Press, 1998. 458 pp. focus is post WW2
* Schull, Joseph. ''Ontario since 1867'' (1978), narrative history
* Stagni, Pellegrino. ''The View from Rome: Archbishop Stagni's 1915 Reports on the Ontario Bilingual Schools Question.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2002. 134 pp.
* Warecki, George M. ''Protecting Ontario's Wilderness: A History of Changing Ideas and Preservation Politics, 1927-1973.' Lang, 2000. 334 pp.
* White, Graham, ed. ''The Government and Politics of Ontario.'' 5th ed. U. of Toronto Press, 1997. 458 pp.
* White, Randall. ''Ontario since 1985.'' Eastendbooks, 1998. 320 pp.
* Wilson, Barbara M. ed. ''Ontario and the First World War, 1914-1918: A Collection of Documents'' (Champlain Society, 1977)

===Maritimes===
* Buckner, Phillip A., and John G. Reid, eds. ''The Atlantic Region to Confederation: A History'' (1994);
* Conrad, Margaret, and James Hiller. ''Atlantic Canada: A Concise History'' (2006).[http://atlanticportal.hil.unb.ca:8000/archive/00000114/01/Conrad_Hiller_Introduction.pdf "Introduction," online]
* MacNutt, W.S. ''The Atlantic Provinces: The Emergence of Colonial Society'' (1965)
* Whitelaw, William Menzies; ''The Maritimes and Canada before Confederation'' [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=900720 (1934) online edition]

====New Brunswick====
* Acheson, T. W. ''Saint John: The Making of a Colonial Urban Community'' (1985)
* Barkley, Murray. "The Loyalist Tradition in New Brunswick." ''Acadiensis''. 4 (1975): 3-45.
* Bell, D. G. ''Early Loyalist Saint John: The Origins of New Brunswick Politics, 1783-1786'' (Fredericton: New Ireland Press, 1983).
* Benedict, William H. ''New Brunswick in history'' (1925)
* Gair, Reavley. ''A Literary and Linguistic History of New Brunswick'' (1986)
* MacNutt, W. S. ''New Brunswick: A History, 1784-1867'' (1984)
* Marquis, Greg. "Commemorating the Loyalists in the Loyalist City: Saint John, New Brunswick, 1883-1934." ''Urban History Review'' . v.33 #1 2004. pp 24+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5007674632 online edition]
* See, Scott. ''Riots in New Brunswick: Orange Nativism and Social Violence in the 1840s'' (1993).
* Whitelaw, William Menzies. ''The Maritimes and Canada before Confederation'' 1934 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=900720 online edition]
* Woodward, Calvin A. ''The history of New Brunswick provincial election campaigns and platforms, 1866-1974: With primary source documents on microfiche'' (1976)

====Nova Scotia====
see extensive biliography at [[Nova Scotia]]

* Beck, J. M. ''Joseph Howe'' (2 vols, Kingston and Montreal, 1962-63), vol 1: ''Conservative Reformer 1804-1848''; vol 2: ''The Briton Becomes Canadian 1848-1873''.
* Beck, J. Murray. ''Politics of Nova Scotia. vol 2: 1896-1988.'' Tantallon, N.S.: Four East 1985 438 pp.
* Choyce, Lesley. ''Nova Scotia: Shaped by the Sea. A Living History.'' (1996). 305 pp.
* Donovan, Kenneth, ed. ''Cape Breton at 200: Historical Essays in Honour of the Island's Bicentennial, 1785-1985.'' Sydney, N.S.: U. College of Cape Breton Press, 1985. 261 pp.
* Earle, Michael, ed. ''Workers and the State in Twentieth Century Nova Scotia.'' Fredericton: Acadiensis, 1989.
* Fingard, Judith; Guildford, Janet; and Sutherland, David. ''Halifax: The First 250 Years'' Halifax: Formac, 1999. 192 pp.
* Frank, David. ''J. B. McLachlan: A Biography - the Story of a Legendary Labour Leader and the Cape Breton Coal Miners.'' Toronto: Lorimer, 1999. 592 pp.
* Johnson, Ralph S. ''Forests of Nova Scotia: A History.'' Tantallon: Nova Scotia Dept. of Lands and Forests; Four East Publisher, 1986. 407 pp.
* Conrad, Margaret, Toni Laidlaw, and Donna Smyth, eds. ''No Place Like Home: Diaries and Letters of Nova Scotia Women 1771-1938'' (1988), primary sources' [http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Like-Home-1771-1938/dp/0887800661/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209697617&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Reid, John G. et al. ''The "Conquest" of Acadia, 1710: Imperial, Colonial, and Aboriginal Constructions.'' (2004). 297 pp.
* Robertson, Barbara R. ''Sawpower: Making Lumber in the Sawmills of Nova Scotia.'' Halifax: Nimbus; Nova Scotia Mus., 1986. 244 pp.
* Whitelaw, William Menzies; ''The Maritimes and Canada before Confederation'' [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=900720 (1934) online edition]

====Newfoundland & Labrador====
see extensive biliography at [[Newfoundland and Labrador]]
* Bannister, Jerry. ''The Rule of the Admirals: Law, Custom, and Naval Government in Newfoundland, 1699-1832.'' (2003).
* Birkenhead, Lord. ''The story of Newfoundland'' (2nd ed. 1920) 192pp [http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=1319 online edition]
* Blake, Raymond B. ''Canadians at Last: Canada Integrates Newfoundland as a Province.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1994. 252 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Canadians-Last-Integration-Newfoundland-Province/dp/0802069789/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206594192&sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]
* Chadwick, Gerald William St. John. ''Newfoundland; Island Into Province'' (1967)
* Conrad, Margaret, and James Hiller. ''Atlantic Canada: A Concise History'' (2006).
* Harris, Leslie. ''Newfoundland and Labrador: A Brief History'' (1968),
* Jackson, Lawrence. ''Newfoundland & Labrador'' (1999)
* MacKay, R. A. ''Newfoundland: Economic, Diplomatic, and Strategic Studies,'' (Oxford University Press, 1946) [http://www.questia.com/read/1018277?title=Newfoundland%3b%20Economic%2c%20Diplomatic%2c%20and%20Strategic%20Studies online edition]
* MacNutt, W.S. ''The Atlantic Provinces: The Emergence of Colonial Society'' (1965)
* Neary, Peter, and Patrick O'Flaherty, eds. ''By Great Waters: A Newfoundland and Labrador Anthology'' (1974)
* Neary, Peter. ''Newfoundland in the North Atlantic world, 1929-1949''. McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996
* O'Flaherty, Patrick. ''Old Newfoundland: A History to 1843.'' St John's: Long Beach, 1999. 284 pp.
* Pope, Peter E. ''Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation in the Seventeenth Century.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2004. 464 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Fish-into-Wine-Newfoundland-Seventeenth/dp/0807829102/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206594192&sr=8-11 excerpt and text search]
* Prowse, D.W. ''A History of Newfoundland'' (1895) 744pp, classic history; [http://collections.mun.ca/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/cns&CISOPTR=22018&REC=2 edition online]
* Rothney, G.O. ''Canadian Historical Society's Historical Pamphlet #10, Newfoundland: A History'' (1964).
* Rowe, Frederick. ''History of Newfoundland and Labrador'' (1980).
* Smallwood, Joseph, et al. eds. ''The Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador'' (5 vol 1981-94) 3900 pages; available on cd-rom [http://www.cuff.com/enl/Anext.htm portions online]

====[[Prince Edward Island|P.E.I.]]====
* Arsenault, Georges. ''The Island Acadians'' Charlottetown: Ragweed, 1989. 296 pp.
* Bolger, Francis W. P., ed. ''Canada's Smallest Province: A History of Prince Edward Island.'' Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island Centennial Comm., 1973. 403 pp.
* Boyde Beck. ''Prince Edward Island: An (Un)Authorized History'' (1996)
* Bumsted, J. M. ''Land, Settlement, and Politics on Eighteenth-Century Prince Edward Island.'' (1987). 238 pp.
* Clark, A. H. ''Three Centuries and the Island. A Historical Geography of Settlement and Agriculture in Prince Edward Island, Canada'' (1959) very broad look at historical geography
* Livingston, W. Ross ''Responsible Government in Prince Edward Island: A Triumph of Self-Government under the Crown.'' 1931. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29232556 online edition]
* MacDonald, Edward. ''If You're Stronghearted: Prince Edward Island in the Twentieth Century'' (Charlottetown: PEI Museum and Heritage Foundation, 2000)
* Macdonald, Heidi. "Developing a Strong Roman Catholic Social Order in Late Nineteenth-Century Prince Edward Island." ''Historical Studies'' Volume: 69. 2003. pp 34+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5007944412 online edition]
* MacKinnon, Wayne. ''The Life of the Party: A History of the Liberal Party in Prince Edward Island.'' Summerside: Liberal Party of Prince Edward Island, 1973. 153 pp.
* MacKinnon, Frank. ''The Government of Prince Edward Island'' (1951),
* Sharpe, Errol. ''A People's History of Prince Edward Island.'' Toronto: Steel Rail, 1976. 252 pp.
* Smitheram, Verner; Milne, David; and Dasgupta, Satadal, ed. ''The Garden Transformed: Prince Edward Island, 1945-1980.'' Charlottetown: Ragweed, 1982. 271 pp.
* Weale, David and Baglole, Harry. ''The Island and Confederation: The End of an Era.'' Summerside, P. E. I.: Williams and Crue, 1973. 166 pp.

===Prairies and B.C.===
see also [[Saskatchewan]]

* [http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx ''Alberta Encyclopedia'' Online (2005)]
* Archer, John H. ''Saskatchewan: A History'' (1980)
* Barman, Jean. ''The West beyond the West: A History of British Columbia'' (1996)
* Barnhart, Gordon L., ed. ''Saskatchewan Premiers of the Twentieth Century.'' (2004). 418 pp.
* Bennett, John W. and Seena B. Kohl. ''Settling the Canadian-American West, 1890-1915: Pioneer Adaptation and Community Building. An Anthropological History.'' (1995). 311 pp. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/settling-the-canadian-american-west-1890-1915-pioneer-adaptation-and-community-building-an-anthropological-history-by-john-w-bennett-seena-b-kohl.jsp online edition]
* Calder, Alison and Wardhaugh, Robert, ed. ''History, Literature, and the Writing of the Canadian Prairies.''U. of Manitoba Press, 2005. 310 pp.
* Danysk, Cecilia. ''Hired Hands: Labour and the Development of Prairie Agriculture, 1880-1930.'' (1995). 231 pp.
* Emery, George. ''The Methodist Church on the Prairies, 1896-1914.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 2001. 259 pp.
*[http://esask.uregina.ca/about_encyclopedia.html ''The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan: A Living Legacy.'' U. of Regina Canadian Plains Research Center, 2005. online] 1071pp in print edition
* Fairbanks, C. and S.B. Sundberg. ''Farm Women on the Prairie Frontier.'' (1983)
* Friesen, Gerald. ''The Canadian Prairies: A History'' (1987, 2nd edition)
* Harris, Cole. ''Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance and Reserves in British Columbia'' (2002)
* Hodgson, Heather, ed. ''Saskatchewan Writers: Lives Past and Present.'' Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, 2004. 247 pp.
* Jones, David C. ''Empire of Dust: Settling and Abandoning the Prairie Dry Belt.'' (1987) 316 pp.
* Keahey, Deborah. ''Making It Home: Place in Canadian Prairie Literature.'' (1998). 178 pp.
* Langford, N. "Childbirth on the Canadian Prairies 1880-1930." ''Journal of Historical Sociology,'' 1995. Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 278-302.
* Langford, Nanci Louise. "First Generation and Lasting Impressions: The Gendered Identities of Prairie Homestead Women." PhD dissertation U. of Alberta 1994. 229 pp. DAI 1995 56(4): 1544-A. DANN95214 Fulltext: [[ProQuest Dissertations & Theses]]
* Laycock, David. ''Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies, 1910 to 1945.'' (1990). 369 pp.
* Melnyk, George. ''The Literary History of Alberta, Vol. 1: From Writing-on-Stone to World War Two.'' U. of Alberta Press, 1998. 240 pp.
* Morton, W. L. ''Manitoba, a History'' University of Toronto Press, 1957 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=72555100 online edition]
* Palmer, Howard. ''The Settlement of the West'' (1977) [http://www.questia.com/read/105450556?title=The%20Settlement%20of%20the%20West online edition]
* Pitsula, James M. "Disparate Duo" ''Beaver'' 2005 85(4): 14-24, a comparison of Saskatchewan and Alberta, Fulltext in [[EBSCO]]
* Rollings-Magnusson, Sandra. "Canada's Most Wanted: Pioneer Women on the Western Prairies." ''Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology'' 2000 37(2): 223-238. Issn: 0008-4948 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Roy, Patricia E., and John Herd Thompson. ''British Columbia: Land of Promises.'' (2005) 224pp The Illustrated History of Canada Series. 2005. 224 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-541048-8. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=168721176825767 online review for H-CANADA]
* Thompson, John Herd. ''Forging the Prairie West.'' (1998)
* Wardhaugh, Robert A. ''Mackenzie King and the Prairie West.'' (2000). 328 pp.
* Wardhaugh, Robert A., ed. ''Toward Defining the Prairies: Region, Culture, and History.'' (2001). 234 pp.
*Waiser, Bill, and John Perret. ''Saskatchewan: A New History'' (2005)

==Economic and Business History==
* Baldwin, John R., and Petr Hanel. ''Innovation and Knowledge Creation in an Open Economy: Canadian Industry and International Implications'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.ca/Innovation-Knowledge-Creation-Open-Economy/dp/0521037131/ref=sr_1_10/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190770028&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Bliss, Michael. ''Northern Enterprise: Five Centuries of Canadian Business''. McClelland and Stewart, (1987).
* Burton, F. W. "Wheat in Canadian History," ''The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science'' Vol. 3, No. 2 (May, 1937), pp. 210-217 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0315-4890%28193705%293%3A2%3C210%3AWICH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D in JSTOR]
* Fleming, Keith R. ''Power at Cost: Ontario Hydro and Rural Electrification, 1911-1958.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, (1992). 326 pp.
* Glazebrook, G. P. de T. ''A History of Transportation in Canada'' (1938)
* Lingenfelter, Richard E., ed. ''The Mining West: A Bibliography & Guide to the History & Literature of Mining in the American & Canadian West.'' 2 vol Scarecrow, 2003. 1550 pp
* Mackintosh, W.A. "The Laurentian Plateau in Canadian Economic Development," ''Economic Geography,'' Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1926), pp. 537-549 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0095%28192610%292%3A4%3C537%3ATLPICE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]
* Marr, William L. and Donald Patterson. ''Canada: An Economic History'', 1980.
* Naylor, Tom. ''The History of Canadian Business. 1867-1914'' 2 vol (1976)
* Norrie, Kenneth, Douglas Owram, and J.C. Herbert Emery. ''A History of the Canadian Economy'' 4th ed. (2007)
* Porter, John. "Concentration of Economic Power and the Economic Elite in Canada," ''The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science,'' Vol. 22, No. 2 (May, 1956), pp. 199-220 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0315-4890%28195605%2922%3A2%3C199%3ACOEPAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]
* Roberts, David. ''In the Shadow of Detroit: Gordon M. McGregor, Ford of Canada, and Motoropolis.'' Wayne State U. Press, 2006. 320 pp.
* Santink, Joy L. ''Timothy Eaton and the Rise of His Department Store.'' U. of Toronto Press, 1990. 319 pp.
* Taylor, Graham D. and Peter Baskerville. ''A Concise History of Business in Canada'', 1994
* Young, John H. "Comparative Economic Development: Canada and the United States," ''The American Economic Review,'' Vol. 45, No. 2, (May, 1955), pp. 80-93 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28195505%2945%3A2%3C80%3ACEDCAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 in JSTOR]
===Labour===
* Babcock, Robert H. ''Gompers in Canada: a study in American continentalism before the First World War'' (1974) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00342 online at ACLS e-books]
* Bradbury, Bettina. ''Working families: Age, gender, and daily survival in industrializing Montreal'' (1993)
* Craven, Paul, ed., ''Labouring lives: work and workers in nineteenth-century Ontario'' (1995)
* Frager, Ruth A., and Carmela K. Patrias. ''Discounted Labour: Women Workers in Canada, 1870-1939'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Discounted-Labour-Workers-1870-1939-Canadian/dp/0802078184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202248466&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Haddow, Rodney, and Thomas Klassen. ''Partisanship, Globalization, and Canadian Labour Market Policy: Four Provinces in Comparative Perspective'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.ca/Partisanship-Globalization-Canadian-Labour-Market/dp/0802090907/ref=sr_1_8/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190770028&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Heron, Craig. ''The Canadian Labour Movement: A Brief History'', (1996).
* Hertel; D. W. ''History of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees: Its Birth and Growth, 1887-1955.'' 1955 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/history-of-the-brotherhood-of-maintenance-of-way-employees-its-birth-and-growth-1887-1955-by-d-w-hertel.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]
* Kealey, Gregory S. ''Dreaming of what might be: the Knights of Labor in Ontario, 1880-1900'' (1982) [http://hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu/2027/heb.00406 online at ACLS e-books]
* Morton, Desmond. ''Working People: An Illustrated History of the Canadian Labour Movement'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Working-People-Illustrated-Canadian-Movement/dp/0773518010/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202248363&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
* Palmer, Bryan D. ''Working Class Experience: Rethinking the History of Canadian Labour, 1800-1991'', 1992

===Railways===
* Andreae, Christopher. ''Lines of Country: An Atlas of Railway and Waterway History in Canada'' (1996)
* Baskerville, Peter. "Hickson, Sir Joseph," [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=40281 ''Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online'' ]
* Baskerville, Peter. "Americans in Britain’s backyard: the railway era in Upper Canada, 1850–1880," ''Business History Review'' 55 (1981): 314–36 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6805(198123)55%3A3%3C314%3AAIBBTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 in JSTOR]
* Brown, Ron. ''The Train Doesn't Stop Here Any More'' (1998) an illustrated history of railway stations in Canada
* Currie, A. W. ''The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada.'' University of Toronto Press, 1957. 556 pp, the standard history
* Eagle, J. A. ''The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Development of Western Canada, 1896-1914.'' McGill-Queen's University Press 1989
* Fleming, R. B. ''The Railway King of Canada: Sir William Mackenzie, 1849-1923'' University of British Columbia Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-railway-king-of-canada-sir-william-mackenzie-1849-1923-by-r-b-fleming.jsp online at [[Questia]]]
* Fournier, Leslie T. ''Railway Nationalization in Canada: The Problem of the Canadian National Railways'' (1937)
* Fournier, Leslie T. "The Canadian National Railway versus the Canadian Pacific: A Comparative Study," ''The Journal of Political Economy'' Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jun., 1931), pp. 369-389 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3808%28193106%2939%3A3%3C369%3ATCNRVT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D in JSTOR]
* Freeman, Kenneth D. et al. ''The Growth and Performance of the Canadian Transcontinental Railways 1956-1981'' (1987)
* Hertel; D. W. ''History of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees: Its Birth and Growth, 1887-1955.'' 1955 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/history-of-the-brotherhood-of-maintenance-of-way-employees-its-birth-and-growth-1887-1955-by-d-w-hertel.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]
* Hofsommer, Don L. ''Grand Trunk Corporation: Canadian National Railways in the United States, 1971-1992.'' 1995. 227 pp.
* Kaye, Lamb W. ''History of the Canadian Pacific Railway''. (1977).
* Leonard, Frank. ''A Thousand Blunders: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and Northern British Columbia'' University of British Columbia Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-thousand-blunders-the-grand-trunk-pacific-railway-and-northern-british-columbia-by-frank-leonard.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]
* den Otter, A.A. ''The Philosophy of Railways: The Transcontinental Railway Idea in British North America'' University of Toronto Press, 1997.
* Regehr, Theodore D. "Hays, Charles M." [http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=41552 ''Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online'']
* Regehr, T. D. ''The Canadian Northern Railway'' Macmillan of Canada 1976
* Stevens, G. ''History of the Canadian National Railways'' Macmillan Company 1973
* Underwood, Jay. ''Built for War: Canada's Intercolonial Railway,'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Built-War-Canadas-Intercolonial-Railway/dp/189719000X/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200276105&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* Weaver, R. Kent. ''The Politics of Industrial Change: Railway Policy in North America'' (1985) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-politics-of-industrial-change-railway-policy-in-north-america-by-r-kent-weaver.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]
* Willson, Beckles. ''The Life of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal'' 1915. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-life-of-lord-strathcona-and-mount-royal-gcmg-gcv0-by-beckles-willson.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]

===Primary sources===
* Innis, Harold. A., and A. R. M. Lower; ''Select Documents in Canadian Economic History, 1783-1885'' University of Toronto Press, 1933 [http://www.questia.com/library/book/select-documents-in-canadian-economic-history-1783-1885-by-h-a-innis-a-r-m-lower.jsp online edition from [[Questia]]]

==Cultural history, popular culture==
* Ainslie, Patricia, and Mary-Beth Laviolette. ''Alberta Art and Artists: An Overview'' (2007)
* Beattie, Eleanor. ''The Handbook of Canadian Film.'' 2nd ed., Toronto: Martin, 1977. 355 pp.
* Blair, Jennifer; Coleman, Daniel; Higginson, Kate; and York, Lorraine, ed. ''ReCalling Early Canada: Reading the Political in Literary and Cultural Production.'' U. of Alberta Press, 2005. 440 pp.
* Clarke, George Elliott. ''Odysseys Home: Mapping African-Canadian Literature.'' U. of Toronto Press, 2002. 491 pp.
* Feldman, Seth and Nelson, Joyce, ed. ''Canadian Film Reader.'' Toronto: Martin, 1977. 405 pp.
* Francis, Daniel. ''The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture.'' Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp, 1992. 260 pp.
* Hammill, Faye. ''Literary Culture and Female Authorship in Canada 1760-2000.'' Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003. 245 pp.
* Keith, W. J. ''Canadian Literature in English.'' London: Longman, 1985. 287 pp.
* Lerner, Loren R. and Williamson, Mary F., eds. ''Art and Architecture in Canada: A Bibliography and Guide to the Literature = Art et Architecture au Canada: Bibliographie et Guide de la Documentation'' U. of Toronto Press, 1991. 998 pp.
* MacDonald, Mary Lu. ''Literature and Society in the Canadas, 1817-1850.'' Mellen, 1992. 360 pp.
* Melnyk, George. ''One Hundred Years of Canadian Cinema.'' U. of Toronto Press, 2004. 361 pp.
* New, W. H., ed. ''Literary History of Canada: Canadian Literature in English.'' (1990). 492 pp.
* Ord, Douglas. ''The National Gallery of Canada: Ideas, Art, Architecture.'' (2003). 500 pp.
* Perron, Paul. ''Narratology and Text: Subjectivity and Identity in New France and Québécois Literature.'' (2003). 338 pp.
* Robidoux, Michael A. "Imagining a Canadian Identity Through Sport: A Historical Interpretation of Lacrosse and Hockey," ''Journal of American Folklore,'' 115/456 (2002): pp. 209-225.
* Simpson-Housley, Paul and Norcliffe, Glen, ed. ''Few Acres of Snow: Literary and Artistic Images of Canada.'' (1992). 277 pp.
* Stich, K. P., ed. ''Reflections: Autobiography and Canadian Literature.'' (1988). 176 pp.
* Smith, Judith E. ''Visions of Belonging: Family Stories, Popular Culture, and Postwar Democracy, 1940-1960.'' (2004). 444 pp.
* Thom, Ian, and Alan Elder. ''A Modern Life: Art and Design in British Columbia 1945-1960'' (2004)
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Morrow, Don, and Kevin Wamsley. ''Sport in Canada: A History.'' (2005) 328 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-541996-2 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=219611151340448 online review from H-CANADA[
* Weiss, Jonathan, and Jane Moss. ''French-Canadian Literature'' (1996)
* Wise, Wyndham, ed. ''Take One's Essential Guide to Canadian Film.'' (2001). 272 pp.
* Woodcock, George. ''Northern Spring: The Flowering of Canadian Literature.'' (1987). 318 pp.

==Women, gender, family==
* Bradbury, Bettina. ''Working families: Age, gender, and daily survival in industrializing Montreal'' (1993)
* Cohen, Marjorie Griffin. ''Women's Work, Markets, and Economic Development in Nineteenth-Century Ontario.'' (1988). 258 pp.
* Forestell, Nancy M., Kathryn M. McPherson, and Cecilia Louise Morgan, eds. ''Gendered Pasts: Historical Essays in Femininity and Masculinity in Canada.'' (2003) 370 pp. ISBN 978-0-8020-8690-7 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=126971117657491 online review from H-CANADA]
* Frager, Ruth A., and Carmela K. Patrias. ''Discounted Labour: Women Workers in Canada, 1870-1939'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Discounted-Labour-Workers-1870-1939-Canadian/dp/0802078184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202248466&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gleason, Mona, and Adele Perry. ''Rethinking Canada: The Promise of Women's History.'' (5th ed. 2006) 407 pp.; 24 essays by scholars ISBN 978-0-19-542350-1 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=186891196447329 online review from H-CANADA]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Canada-Promise-Womens-History/dp/019542350X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206793867&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Halpern, Monda. ''And on that Farm He Had a Wife: Ontario Farm Women and Feminism, 1900-1970.'' (2001). 234 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=121941071198404 online review from H-CANADA]
* Hammill, Faye. ''Literary Culture and Female Authorship in Canada 1760-2000.'' Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003. 245 pp.
* Kechnie, Margaret C. ''Organizing Rural Women: the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, 1897-1910.'' (2003). 194 pp.
* Moss, Mark. ''Manliness and Militarism: Educating Young Boys in Ontario for War.'' (2001). 216 pp.
* Noël, Françoise. ''Family Life and Sociability in Upper and Lower Canada, 1780-1870.'' (2003) 384pp
* Parr, Joy, ed. ''A Diversity of Women: Ontario, 1945-1980.'' (1996). 335 pp.
* Prentice, Alison ''et al''. ''Canadian Women: a history'' (1996, 2nd edition)
* Smith, Judith E. ''Visions of Belonging: Family Stories, Popular Culture, and Postwar Democracy, 1940-1960.'' (2004). 444 pp.
* Strong-Boag, Veronica, Mona Gleason, and Adele Perry. ''Rethinking Canada: The Promise of Women's History'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Canada-Promise-Womens-History/dp/0195417283/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202247707&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Social, ethnicity, religion, and population==
* Bagnell, Kenneth. ''Canadese: A portrait of the Italian Canadians'' (1989)
* Bloemraad, Irene. ''Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.ca/Becoming-Citizen-Incorporating-Immigrants-Refugees/dp/0520248996/ref=sr_1_7/702-9157274-1851200?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190773910&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Fay, Terence J. ''A History of Canadian Catholics.'' (2002). 392 pp. ISBN 978-0-7735-2313-5. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=121121057291904 online review from H-CANADA] also [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0773523146/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Friedland, Martin L. ''The University of Toronto: A History.'' (2002). 777pp ISBN 978-0-8020-4429-7 [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=243011046448440 online review at H-CANADA]
* Grekul, Lisa. ''Leaving Shadows: Literature in English by Canada's Ukrainians'' (2005)
* Grenke, Arthur. ''The German Community in Winnipeg 1872 to 1919'' (1991)
* Iacovetta, Franca, Paula Draper, and Robert A. Ventresca. ''A Nation of Immigrants: Readings in Canadian History, 1840s-1960s'' (1998)
* Kelley, Ninette, and Michael J. Trebilcock. ''The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy'' (1998)
* Kukushkin, Vadim. ''From Peasants to Labourers: Ukrainian and Belarusan Immigration from the Russian Empire to Canada'' (2007)
* McDougall, Duncan M. "Immigration into Canada, 1851-1920," ''The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science,'' Vol. 27, No. 2 (May, 1961), pp. 162-175 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0315-4890%28196105%2927%3A2%3C162%3AIIC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 in JSTOR]
* McKay, Ian. "Tartanism Triumphant. The Construction of Scottishness in Nova Scotia, 1933-1954." ''Acadiensis'' 21, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 5-47.
* Makabe, Tomoko. ''The Canadian Sansei'' (1998), 3rd generation of Japanese descent
* Marshall, David. ''Secularizing the Faith: Canadian Protestant Clergy and the Crisis of Belief, 1850-1940'' (1992).
* Messamore, Barbara, ed. ''Canadian Migration Patterns from Britain and North America'' (2004) 300pp; essays by scholars
* Murphy, Terrence, and Roberto Perin, eds. ''A Concise History of Christianity in Canada'' (1996).
* Petryshyn, Jaroslav. ''Peasants in the Promised Land: Canada and the Ukrainians'' (1985)
* Pivato, Joseph. ''The Anthology Of Italian-Canadian Writing'' (1998)
* Riedel, Walter. ''The Old world and the new: Literary perspectives of German-speaking Canadians'' (1984)
* Roy, Patricia. ''A White Man's Province: British Columbia Politicians and Chinese and Japanese Immigrants, 1858-1914'' (1989)
* Schryer, Frans J. ''The Netherlandic Presence in Ontario: Pillars, Class and Dutch Ethnicity.'' (1998). 458 pp. focus is post WW2
* Wagner, Jonathan. ''A History Of Migration From Germany to Canada, 1850-1939'' (2005)

==Historiography and guides to the scholarly literature==
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' (1990). 156 pp.
* Berger, Carl. ''Writing Canadian History: Aspects of English Canadian Historical Writing since 1900, 2nd edition'' (1986)
* Berger, Carl, ed. ''Contemporary Approaches to Canadian Writing'' (1987)
* Bliss, Michael. "Privatizing the Mind: The Sundering of Canadian History, the Sundering of Canada," ''Journal of Canadian Studies'' 26 (Winter 1991-92): 5-17
* Brandt, Gail Cuthbert. "National Unity and the Politics of Political History," ''Journal of the Canadian Historical Association'' 3 (1992): 3-11
* Dick, Lyle. "A Growing Necessity for Canada: W. L. Morton's Centenary Series and the Forms of National History, 1955-80," ''The Canadian Historical Review'' 82, No. 2 (June 2001), 223-252.
* Edwards, Justin D.l and Douglas Ivison. ''Downtown Canada: Writing Canadian Cities'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Downtown-Canada-Writing-Canadian-Cities/dp/0802087205/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202248020&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gagnon, Serge. ''Quebec and its Historians: 1840 to 1920'' (English ed. 1982; French ed. 1978)
* Gagnon, Serge. ''Quebec and its Historians: The Twentieth Century'' (English ed. 1985)
* Glassford, Larry A. "The Evolution of 'New Political History' in English-Canadian Historiography: From Cliometrics to Cliodiversity." ''American Review of Canadian Studies''. 32#3 (2002). pp 347+. [http://www.questia.com/read/5002519789?title=The%20Evolution%20of%20%22New%20Political%20History%22%20in%20English-Canadian%20Historiography%3a%20From%20Cliometrics%20to%20Cliodiversity online edition]* Granatstein, J. L. ''Who Killed Canadian History?'' (2000)
* Granatstein, J. L. ''A Reader's Guide to Canadian History: Confederation to the Present'' (1982)
* Kealey, Gregory S. "Class in English-Canadian Historical Writing: Neither Privatizing, Nor Sundering," ''Journal of Canadian Studies'' 27 (Summer 1992):
* Kealey, Linda, Ruth Pierson, Joan Sangster, and Veronica Strong-Boag. "Teaching Canadian History in the 1990s: Whose 'National' History Are We Lamenting?," ''Journal of Canadian Studies'' 27 (Summer 1992):
* Muise, D. A. ed., ''A Reader's Guide to Canadian History: i, Beginnings to Confederation'' (1982); historiography
** Granatstein, Jack, ed. ''A Reader's Guide to Canadian History: Confederation to the Present'' v2 (1982); historiography
* Osborne, Ken. "'Our History Syllabus Has Us Gasping': History in Canadian Schools--Past, Present, and Future," ''The Canadian Historical Review'' 81 (September 2000):
* Parr, Joy. "Gender History and Historical Practice," ''The Canadian Historical Review'' 76 (September 1995): 354-376
* Taylor, M. Brook, ed. ''Canadian History: A Reader's Guide''. Vol. 1. Doug Owram, ed. ''Canadian History: A Reader's Guide''. Vol. 2. Toronto: 1994. historiography
* Rudin, Ronald. ''Making History in Twentieth Century Quebec'' (1997)
* Schultz, John. ed. ''Writing About Canada: A Handbook for Modern Canadian History'' (1990),
* Strong-Boag, Veronica, Mona Gleason, and Adele Perry. ''Rethinking Canada: The Promise of Women's History'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Canada-Promise-Womens-History/dp/0195417283/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202247707&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Strong-Boag, Veronica. "Contested Space: The Politics of Canadian Memory," ''Journal of the Canadian Historical Association'' 5 (1994): 3-16
* Wright, Donald. ''The Professionalization of History in English Canada'' (2005) 280pp [http://www.amazon.com/Professionalization-History-English-Canada/dp/0802039286/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202247707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

==Primary sources==
* [http://samizdat.stores.yahoo.net/canlitandhis.html Canada: Literature and History 347 e-books]
* Blackwell, John D. "Canadian Studies: A Core Collection," ''CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries'' 35 (September 1997): 71-84, [http://www.iccs-ciec.ca/blackwell.html updated version]
* Browne, G. P., ed. ''Documents on the Confederation of British North America'' (1969).
* Crowe, Harry S., Kenneth McNaught, J. H. Stewart Reid, eds. ''A Source-Book of Canadian History: Selected Documents and Personal Papers.'' 1964. 485pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91233293 online edition]
* Pickersgill, J.W., and Donald F. Forster, ''The Mackenzie King Record''. 4 vols. Vol. 1: 1939-1944 and Vol. 2: 1944-1945 (University of Toronto Press, 1960); and [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1008334 Vol. 3: 1945-1946 online] and [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65373881 Vol. 4: 1946-1947 online] (University of Toronto Press, 1970). from King's diary
* Riddell, Walter A. ed; ''Documents on Canadian Foreign Policy, 1917-1939'' Oxford University Press, 1962 806 pages of documents
* Talman, James J. ed; ''Basic Documents in Canadian History'' (1959) 192 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28513517 online edition]
* Thorner, Thomas, with Thor Frohn-Nielsen, eds. ''"A Few Acres of Snow": Documents in Pre-Confederation Canadian History,'' and ''"A Country Nourished on Self-Doubt": Documents on Post-Confederation Canadian History'', 2nd ed. (2003).
===Historical statistics===
* Statistics Canada. ''Historical Statistics of Canada''. 2d ed., Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1983.
* [http://www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb_r000-eng.htm ''Canada Year Book'' (CYB) annual 1867-1967]
* Cantril, Hadley and Mildred Strunk, eds. ''Public Opinion, 1935-1946'' (1951), massive compilation of many public opinion polls from Canada and USA[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98754501 online edition]

==Online sources==
* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1''The Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] the best starting point
* [http://www.h-net.org/~canada/ Hayday, Matthew; Pass, Forrest; Fyson, Donald; and Bangarth, Stephanie, ed. H-CANADA: H-Net Discussion Network 2007]
* Brune, Nick and Alastair Sweeny. [http://canadachannel.ca History of Canada Online]. Waterloo: Northern Blue Publishing, 2005.
* The '''[http://canadawiki.org/index.php/CanText_Electronic_Library CanText text library]''' has primary sources and documents

[[Category:Canada]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T14:46:57Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T14:21:21Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T13:30:38Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T12:31:30Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T04:06:21Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-29T04:03:10Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement:

::<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

:I don't know why you keep avoiding the obvious: the theory of relativity ''does'' plainly assume a maximum fixed velocity for light, known as ''c''. If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.

:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)

::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....

::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.

::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::My restated postulate that the "speed of light can never be increased" does preclude the scenario you describe, whereby a static observer increases the observed speed of light with the assistance of a moving observer. This is expressly precluded by my restatement of the postulate.

:::But your postulate about "independent of the motion of the light source" does not preclude increasing the speed of light beyond the ordinarily observed "c". Indeed, some relativists now insist that "c" need not be the ordinarily observed speed of light, but can be any assumed upper bound on the speed of light, and might be much greater than "c" as traditionally defined. My postulate is what underlies the above fundamental formula of relativity; your postulate requires redefining "c" in the above formula.

:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::If your formulation of Einstein's postulates is superior Pauli's formulation (as quoted by me), why do physicists around the world use Pauli's version in text books, articles, etc. ? Why did Einstein, Sommerfeld, Born, etc. endorsed Pauli's article, where he stated the postulates the way I do? Is yours a new insight into the world of special relativity which all the physicists of today seem to have missed?

::::I'm sorry that you found the biblical quote unclear.

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Rather than answer my two simple questions, or be substantive, you resort to a question rant. Surely you don't think Pauli's formulation is perfect, and incapable of improvement. No, your real position seems to be that a ''conservative'' cannot possibly improve on it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Two answer your two questions:
::::::*Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? - '''Yes'''
::::::*Do you earnestly seek the truth? - '''Yes'''
::::::Now, here are mine:
::::::*Do you try to ''apply'' the Bible to physics?
::::::*Do you think you are the one to improve Pauli's formulation of Einstein's postulates substantially? The same formulations which are around for a century and used by physicists around the world? Endorsed by the leading scientist of his time? Please, do yourself a favor, and ask some actual physicists what they think about your version...
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:03, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-29T03:58:13Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-28T11:44:47Z

ClementB: extend

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-28T04:51:31Z

ClementB: /* Canada a colony during WWI? */

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-28T04:29:08Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-27T04:52:14Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-26T21:27:21Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-26T21:07:05Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-26T21:06:41Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-26T20:20:17Z

ClementB:

World History Lecture Twelve

2009-04-26T19:53:59Z

ClementB: sp

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

This lecture focuses on World War II: before, during and after. No war in the history of the world (except, perhaps, the American Revolutionary War) had as much lasting impact as World War II. We still feel some of its effects to this day, more than 60 years later.

==The Rise of Fascism in Europe==

The world in the early 1930s was suffering from the Great Depression. This created discontent and encouraged change. National governments were in place in Italy and Germany, but the people were not happy with them.

Nationalism had been developing for decades, but it turned into an extreme form known as “[[fascism]]” during this period. Fascism is defined as a political philosophy that elevates the nation and its ethnicity above the individual, and uses a dictator to impose economic and social regimentation and control. Often symbols are used for the purpose of mind-control, like the [[swastika]] in Germany. Special salutes are also required to inculcate complete devotion to the national ruler, such as "''Heil Hitler''". Mass rallies were common. All opposition was suppressed.

Fascism is very different from [[communism]], and fascist countries were the mortal enemies of communist countries. Communism sought a [[worldwide revolution]] that would abolish national identity, while fascism sought exactly to advance their country over the rest of the world. Communism opposed different social classes, while fascism encouraged it. Communism hated wealth, while fascism encouraged the creation of wealth to make the nation stronger. Communism considered everyone to be equal, while fascists thought their nation was the best. Communism pushed women into the traditionally male roles of industrial workers and even soldiers, while strongly nationalistic countries like Japan imported foreign male workers from Korea and China rather than force women into industrial jobs. Many say that fascism and communism are opposites, but they did have a few key characteristics in common: both used a dictator and demanded complete allegiance to the state ruler, rather than to God. Both also had a disdain for individual freedom and human rights, and both stressed the collective.

 
===Mussolini===

The first signs of fascism were in Italy, where the people were upset at not acquiring territory as a result of World War I and where economic problems existed earlier than the Great Depression. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded Italy’s Fascist Party, emphasizing the need to improve Italy’s economy and its military. In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy. Mussolini then suppressed all opposition. Ironically, Mussolini forbade strikes as he wanted to win over the wealthy people in the country and build Italy’s economic strength.

===Hitler and the Nazis===
[[Image:Hitler7.JPG‎|right|300px|thumb|Hitler, his favored “Aryans” as soldiers, and the intimidating swastika symbol of Nazism]]
In Germany the name of the fascists was the “Storm Troopers” or “Brownshirts”, and their political party was called ''Nationalsozialismus'', the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party, or “Nazis” for short. Adolf Hitler became their leader and he promised to stop communism and undo the Treaty of Versailles, which many Germans considered to be a humiliation to their nation. (The humiliation and outrage caused by this treaty is often cited as a reason for Hitler's rise to power.) In 1923 Hitler led an armed rebellion in Munich, but was defeated and jailed. While imprisoned, he wrote ''Mein Kampf'' (''My Struggle'') in which he declared “Aryans” to be the master race. Hitler considered most German people to be “Aryans”, a term that properly refers to the Indo-European people who partly migrated to India. The connection is ironic because the swastika, Hitler’s symbol, is borrowed from Hinduism and the name itself is Sanskrit. But when Hitler said “Aryan” he meant people having Nordic features rather Indian features.

Hitler also promised to help Germany take back land it lost in the Treaty of Versailles and to conquer Russia and Eastern Europe so that Germans could have more living space, or “lebensraum”.

In 1933, Germany was in the throes of the Great Depression and German President Paul von Hindenburg panicked by naming Hitler chancellor. This was one of the biggest mistakes in world history. Hitler quickly solidified power for the Nazis. Calling himself Der Fuhrer, Hitler began in 1934 to murder hundreds of Germans who had opposed him. Hitler developed a secret police known as the Gestapo, and also a special, black-uniformed public police known as the ''Schutzstaffel'', or SS. Hitler took over the schools, requiring teenagers to join the ''Hitlerjugend'', or Hitler Youth (for boys) and the League of German Girls (for girls). They were then brainwashed with pro-Hitler propaganda. But Hitler promoted industrialization and revived the economy, making him a hero in Germany and even to some in the United States.

From the start Hitler blamed Jewish people in Germany for its problems. In 1933, the Nazis began passing laws taking away rights from Jews, and on Nov. 9, 1938 the Nazis conducted a massive pogrom in a thousand German towns that attacked Jewish people in their homes and destroyed their businesses. This day, which came after years of harassment, is known as the “''Kristallnacht''”, or the night of broken glass. Afterward Jews were prohibited from being in public buildings or owning or working in retail stores.

''Time'' magazine named Hitler "Man of the Year" at the end of 1938. It explained that the:<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html</ref>

:Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.

:Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.

===Franco and the Spanish civil war===

Meanwhile, dictators were rising to power in other countries. In 1936, a civil war broke out in Spain when fascists who supported General Francisco Franco attempted to overthrow the elected republican government. This was a three-sided civil war, as Franco’s Nationalists battled a group of communists (the “International Brigades”) as well as the Republicans, and it lasted for three bloody years until 1939. This war attracted attention by writers and thinkers worldwide. The British writer George Orwell, who later penned classic anti-communist novels entitled ''Animal Farm'' and ''1984'', volunteered to fight for the republican government and against both the communists and Franco’s fascists. Orwell survived after taking a bullet through his neck. Britain, France and the United States remained officially neutral while Germany and Italy helped Franco. Some Americans felt that Franco was far better than the communists, and were relieved that Franco won.

Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania were also taken over by their own dictators. The only democracy left in Eastern Europe in 1935 was Czechoslovakia.

==World War II==

Two nations – Germany and Japan – had built themselves into perfect fighting machines. They lacked diversity in their populations, with the German people being almost completely of one Germanic ethnicity, and the Japanese population being almost completely of one Japanese ethnicity. Both nations had become dominated by non-Christian belief systems. In Germany the prevailing view among the elite was that there was, or should be, a master race that defeats all others. In Japan, there was unyielding devotion to their warlord emperor, whom they believed to be a god.

Both countries had powerful industrial economies to feed their thirst for power. In Germany, a leader (Adolf Hitler) had risen to power who had phenomenal public speaking skills, and who could whip the German people into a frenzy with his demagoguery. In Japan the national religion (Shinto) called on the Japanese to do the emperor’s will as though a god had ordered them to do so.

Germany and Japan each experienced a rise of nationalism and the rise of an influential, popular dictator, and began to threaten the world at the same time. Other nations experienced the same rise of nationalism, and dictators coming to power, but did not become as serious of a threat. Why was it that these two nations independently arrived at similar nationalism and dictatorship, but came from extremely different starting points; one because of religion, the other, due to the lack thereof? Just as we saw unrelated peoples do similar things in ancient times, such as building structures that looked like ziggurats and developing [[feudalism]], we see the coincidence of German and Japan nationalism independently threatening the world at the same time.

===Aggression in the 1930s===

Japan’s feudal period had militaristic aspects, but in the 1920s Japan was a democratic government that signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact for peace. Then the Great Depression hit Japan just like everywhere else, and the Japanese overthrew their democratic government and replaced it with a military regime. Emperor Hirohito rose to power as a military ruler.

Japan decided that it could solve its economic problems by expanding. That would enable it to obtain raw materials for production and new markets for exports. At least that is what many historians say. Perhaps the real truth is that the Japanese liked winning wars and no one had beaten them yet. China was many times bigger than Japan, but was no match for the Japanese military. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, attracted in part by the coal and iron deposits there. This invasion began the Asian phase of World War II.

The League of Nations condemned this invasion but chose not to stop it, from fear that any opposition would spark another war like the one they had just suffered through. They held onto the hope that if left alone, the invasions would stop. Japan withdrew from the League in 1933, and, along with Germany, played off of the fears of the League of Nations.

In 1937, Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerrilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.

In a completely unrelated move, Italy invaded one of the last remaining independent nations in Africa: Ethiopia. In the 1890s, Ethiopia had fought off the Italians, but Mussolini was back for revenge. He easily conquered Ethiopia in 1935-1936 and, again, the League of Nations could do nothing when Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie begged for help.

By 1935 Hitler was rearming Germany, and in 1936 he moved German troops into the buffer zone separating Germany from France: the industrialized Rhineland. This violated the Treaty of Versailles but no one did anything to stop it, including the powerless League of Nations. Mussolini thought it best to ally Italy with Germany, and in October 1936 they formed the Rome-Berlin Axis. Japan allied with Germany the following month, and unified the Axis Powers in 1937. In 1940, Italy, Germany, and Japan all joined together in the [[Tripartite Pact]] and officially created the Axis Powers.

Hitler was just warming up. Next he wanted to annex Austria to Germany, as they had been combined in the past. Hitler himself was born in Austria and many Austrians supported joining Germany. So Hitler annexed Austria on March 12, 1938 without much resistance, and this is known as the Anschluss (unification of Austria and Germany). France and Britain had promised to defend the independence of Austria, but did nothing.

The more Hitler grabbed, the more he wanted. He turned to western Czechoslovakia, which had a large number of German speakers. In September 1938 he demanded that this region, the Sudetenland, submit to Germany and join it. But the Czech government refused and turned to France for assistance.

Mussolini called for the Munich Conference in September 1938 to address this crisis about Czechoslovakia. Germany, Italy, Britain and France were invited, while Stalin’s Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia were not. In a classic example of making a deal with the devil, Britain and France agreed to allow Hitler to take the Sudetenland in exchange for his promise to stop there and not invade Czechoslovakia further. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in one of the worst blunders in the history of the world, insisted that appeasing Hitler was the best approach. Chamberlain received a hero’s welcome on his return to England, and he declared that he had achieved “peace in our time.” An English newspaper justified the appeasement by claiming that Germans were simply “going into their own back yard.” But within six months, Hitler annexed all of Czechoslovakia and then Mussolini grabbed Albania. Chamberlain was discredited, and his major critic (the more conservative Winston Churchill) replaced him in 1940.

Hitler was now ready to make his big move. He demanded that Poland give back a former German seaport known as Danzig. Poland refused and prepared to defend against a German invasion. Courageous Polish soldiers on horses defended against German tanks. Poland obtained the support of Britain and France, who promised to help Poland defend if Germany attacked. Britain and France then turned to Stalin in the Soviet Union, but he double-crossed them. Stalin secretly agreed with Hitler in August 1939 to divide Poland among themselves and not to attack each other. Stalin also received a promise from Hitler that Stalin could annex Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Finland.

===German Aggression in 1939-1940===

Hitler’s dictatorship, the Third Reich, was ready to begin conquering all of Europe. He started with Poland based on Stalin’s promise not to interfere. On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched a lightning-fast, massive attack (a “blitzkrieg”) against Poland. A blitzkrieg combines bombing with a tank invasion. As mentioned above, Polish soldiers fought valiantly on horseback, but were crushed. France and Britain declared war on Germany in two days, on September 3rd. After destroying Warsaw, Poland, with the bombing and destruction of the Polish militia, Hitler annexed western Poland to Germany.

By mid-September, Stalin was grabbing eastern Poland and also annexing Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Finland put up an awesome struggle against Stalin, and the typically cold winter helped its defenses. But by March 1940, the massive Soviet army had taken territory from Finland.

Germany did little for six months after taking Poland. The Germans nicknamed this the “Sitzkrieg” (sit (wait) – skrieg). Even though war had been declared, the nations seemed to be watching and waiting. Some call this period the “phony war.” The British and French fortified the Maginot Line, which was a defensive line set up along the French-German border. Ever since World War I, the French relied on a strong line there to prevent Germans from ever invading again. But Germany later invaded by going around (“outflanking”) the Maginot Line.

The Germans, meanwhile, fortified their Siegfried Line on their side. Then, on April 9, 1940, the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway. Denmark surrendered quickly, and by June Norway had fallen also.

By the middle of 1940 a real world war had begun again. On one side were the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany and Italy. On the other side where the Allied Powers of Great Britain and its colonies (commonwealth), the nations of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, France and its colonies, and potentially the United States and the Soviet Union.

===Hitler Takes Continental Europe===

After taking Norway and Denmark, Hitler invaded and quickly conquered the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The Allies were out-manned and ill-equipped for the German tanks and air force. The Allies retreated to Dunkirk, a harbor town on the northernmost tip of France, across the English Channel from England. There they expected to be slaughtered by the advancing German forces.

The Germans did bomb the Allies mercilessly at Dunkirk. But in what Winston Churchill called the “miracle of Dunkirk,” 338,226 soldiers were evacuated to England during constant bombing. This required over 900 vessels to cross the English Channel, and the abandonment of 40,000 land vehicles at Dunkirk. The code name for this was Operation Dynamo. Towards the end of the war, the Allied forces would return to liberate this town amid heavy German resistance.

France fell to the Axis Powers on June 24, 1940, after Mussolini joined forces with Hitler and invaded France from the south. The Germans took control of northern France, and in Southern France the Germans installed a Nazi-controlled government (the Vichy government) under a “puppet” for the Germans, French Prime Minister Henri Petain. The real French government, led by French general Charles de Gaulle, was set up as government-in-exile in London. De Gaulle’s Free French armies continued to battle Germany until the Allied Forces liberated France in 1944.

After France fell, the only remaining prize in Europe for the Germans to capture was Great Britain itself. (Switzerland, a small country protected by the Alps and a tremendous self-defense system that included gun ownership by nearly every family, was never invaded by the Germans.)

Great Britain’s new leader, Winston Churchill, refused to surrender to Hitler. Hitler began Operation Eagle to bomb London, using the powerful German air force (the Luftwaffe). From September 1940 to May 1941, “the Blitz” consisted of constant German bombing of British cities, especially London. There were more than 40,000 civilian casualties, and people would listen for air sirens as the signal to hide in underground shelters.

A new invention, radar, saved the British. The British Royal Air Force (RAF) began tracking incoming German airplanes and started shooting them down. Also, the will of the British to survive deprived the bombing campaign of victory. Hitler was forced to suspend the bombing in May 1941, and the Battle of Britain was over.

Recall that Hitler was anti-communist, and even though he had a secret agreement with Stalin over Poland, Hitler long planned to defeat Stalin. He prepared to accomplish this by first conquering the Balkans in 1940, thereby persuading Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria to join the Axis Powers. When two countries refused to submit (Yugoslavia and Greece), Hitler simply invaded and conquered them in 1941.

Hitler was then ready to invade the Soviet Union, beginning on June 22, 1941 in Operation Barbarossa. The irresistible force had met the immovable object, as the Soviet Union had the largest and most vicious army in the world. The communists lacked the technology of the Germans, but the Soviet Union had more people and just as much industrial capacity. This invasion by Hitler caused the Soviet Union to join the Allied Powers.

Still, the Germans pushed the Soviets back, and the communists resorted to their “scorched-earth” policy of burning everything in sight as they retreated. A similar policy had been used by the Russians to survive Napoleon’s invasion over a century earlier. Then the harsh winter hit the German troops, and 500,000 German soldiers perished from the frigid temperatures. Hitler felt he could capture Leningrad, but Russians never surrender and they lived on rats rather than give their city to the Germans. That forced the Germans to remain outside the city, freezing to death. When the Germans proceeded to Moscow in December 1941, Soviet General Georgi Zhukov defeated them with Siberian troops. The Germans paid a heavy price for trying to defeat the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, one of the shrewdest commanders in world history, the German field general Erwin Rommel, came to the aid of the Italians in northern Africa. In September 1940, Mussolini advanced towards the Suez Canal and the rich oil fields of the Middle East. The British woke up to this and defeated the Italians, capturing more than 100,000 prisoners in the process.

But the brilliant German Rommel, nicknamed “The Desert Fox,” brought a powerful German tank corps known as the Afrika Korps to the aid of the Italians. He routed the British in Libya, who were then forced to retreat to Tobruk.

===The Holocaust and “Final Solution”===

Adolf Hitler blamed the Jewish people for Germany’s troubles. The Nuremburg Laws of 1935 prohibited Jewish people (and other groups) from holding official positions in government.<ref name="WW II Holocaust">http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/holocaust.htm</ref> Hitler found it useful for his goals to have a scapegoat, and the Nazis made the Jewish people the scapegoat. Other groups, such as gypsies, also became scapegoats. Nazis claimed to be returning to German tradition by excluding Jews. The Nuremberg Laws also prohibited Jewish people from owning property or even becoming German citizens. Nazis forced Jewish people to wear a bright yellow Star of David on their clothing, as a way of ostracizing them.

Jewish people began to flee Germany, emigrating to other countries such as the United States and safer countries in Europe. But other countries, including the United States, had limits on immigration. The pogrom of the Kristallnacht in 1938, described earlier, increased the Jewish emigration from Germany.

Many Jewish people remained in Germany and throughout Europe, and they became victimized by Hitler’s “Final Solution” (“Endlosung”), which was the systematic execution of the Jewish people in concentration camps. Other groups considered by Hitler to be inferior, such as gypsies and the disabled, were also targeted. In 1941, Hitler began rounding them up and forcing them into segregated communities called ghettos, surrounded by barbed wire. Concentration and extermination camps having gas chambers for mass executions were built to kill Jews. Of the 6 million Jews killed in these camps, 3 million were from Poland, 1.5 million from the Soviet Union, and 160,000 from Germany.<ref>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/history.html</ref> This is known as the Holocaust, an extreme evil unlike anything else in history. It is difficult to understand why no one stopped it until the Allied forces liberated the concentration camps. Five million others, including millions of Christians, were also killed in these camps.<ref name="WW II Holocaust"/>

The “Angel of Death” in one of the worst extermination (or death) camps, Auschwitz, was Dr. Josef Mengele. Mengele had obtained a Ph.D. based on Darwinian evolution, and had written his dissertation thesis on racial differences among humans. He supported and reinforced Nazi theories of racial superiority with phony research claims. He was an ardent supporter of “survival of the fittest” and he performed cruel experiments on humans at the concentration camp in furtherance of the theory of evolution. He attempted to prove that disease was the product of racial inferiority, and he would amputate healthy limbs and perform other cruel surgeries on prisoners. Today Mengele is criticized by everyone, but supporters of the theory of evolution omit mentioning how much Mengele’s work was based on that theory. Mengele was never punished for his crimes, and after the war he fled to Brazil, where decades later he drowned after suffering a stroke in his brain, while swimming.

===The Enigma===

In warfare, both sides use "ciphers" to encrypt their messages about troop movements and planned attacks in secret codes so that the enemy cannot eavesdrop and understand the communications. The National Security Agency is a super-secret branch of the U.S. Government staffed by mathematicians who seek better ways to protect American communications against enemy interception, and better ways to decode or decrypt the secret messages of the enemy to anticipate their next moves.

As an NSA report explains about World War II:<ref>http://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/cryptologic_heritage/publications/wwii/eavesdropping.pdf</ref>

:Two examples of famous ciphers from World War II are the Axis cipher machines, the German Enigma and the Japanese Purple (known to the Japanese as the 97-shiki O-bun In-ji-ki, or Alphabetical Typewriter ’97). Both machines substituted letters for plaintext elements according to daily settings (key) for each machine. Interestingly, most ciphers used by all sides during the war overwhelmingly were manual in nature. That is, they involved the use of paper charts and key. Such a manual cipher was the double transposition cipher used by German Police units to encrypt their reports about the massacres of Jews, partisans, prisoners, and Soviet commissars to Police headquarters in Berlin.
[[File:Nsa-enigma.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The Enigma]]
The Enigma was a portable cipher machine, roughly the size of a typewriter, which could encrypt and decrypt secret messages. It used electro-mechanical rotors to convert a message to a secret code, and then another machine could decode that same message and reveal the original message. This machine was commercially available beginning in the early 1920s. The Nazi German military version generated codes widely thought to be unbreakable.

The Enigma machine was equipped with a 26-letter keyboard, with one light per letter of the alphabet. Inside the machine was a set of wired drums for scrambling the input. To encipher or encrypt a letter, the operator pushed the relevant key and observed which of the lights lit. The communication between two operators required that each had an Enigma machine set up in the same way as each other. The large number of possibilities for setting the rotors (and a plugboard that could swap letters) made for an astronomical number of possible configurations, each producing a different cipher. The Germans changed the settings daily, such that the code had to be re-broken each day in order to decrypt the messages.

For others to break (decrypt) the code, they had to figure out how the Enigma functioned, the wiring of its rotors and its daily settings (both rotors and plugboard).

Nazi Germany used the Enigma before and during World War II to send messages about its military maneuvers. But in 1932 a 27-year-old Polish mathematician (specifically, a cryptologist) named Marian Rejewski used advanced mathematics (permutation theory with some group theory) to secretly break (“crack”) the Enigma codes. He then helped design working “doubles” of the Enigmas that could find the keys necessary for decryption. By 1938 the Poles were decrypting most of the German messages, and the Poles shared their marvelous discovery with Great Britain and France.

This breakthrough enabled the Allies to anticipate German military maneuvers, although sometimes the Allies would allow an attack to occur successfully in order to avoid signaling to the Germans that their code had been broken. The Allied code-breaking effort was known as “Ultra”, as in “ultra-secret”.
At the end of the war, Allied General Dwight Eisenhower said that Ultra was “decisive” to the Allied victory over Germany. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also declared, “It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war.” The breaking of the German codes prevented Germany from completely blockading Britain with U-boats and enabled the Allied forces to make key strategic decisions throughout the war.

===America Enters the War===

Throughout the 1930s, there was ambivalence in England and the United States about Hitler and the Nazis. In America many people are of German descent, and Hitler was popular. Time Magazine named him as “Man of the Year.” On some college campuses, Hitler was voted the greatest leader.

Some viewed Hitler as an answer to Joseph Stalin and communism in Russia (although some Americans had supported Stalin and communism). Others thought there was a “Jewish problem” in Europe. G.K. Chesterton, who favored creating a new state like Israel for the Jewish population, said this in 1934: “Today, although I still think there is a Jewish problem, I am appalled by the Hitlerite atrocities. They have absolutely no reason or logic behind them. It is quite obviously the expedient of a man who has been driven to seeking a scapegoat, and has found with relief the most famous scapegoat in European history, the Jewish people.”

But most in America felt it was time to stay out of Europe and let Germany, France, England and Italy solve their own conflicts. No one in America expected the Holocaust, and Hitler kept it quiet even after it began in 1942. In the late 1930s, the debate over involvement by the United States in Europe had almost nothing to do with discrimination against Jewish people by the Nazis. Discrimination based on race was common throughout the world, and the United States herself had many laws or policies discriminating based on race.

In an effort to remain neutral, Congress passed several laws between 1935 and 1937 making it illegal for Americans to lend money to a nation at war, or sell it weapons. But by 1941, President Roosevelt felt he needed to help England, and he persuaded Congress to pass the [[Lend-Lease Act]] to allow him to lend or lease weapons to any nation that he considered to be vital to the United States. As a practical matter, this meant that President Roosevelt could now help England. President Roosevelt ordered the U.S. Navy to begin escorting British ships that carried American arms, and Hitler predictably responded by commanding his U-boats (submarines) to sink cargo ships. When a U-boat shot torpedoes at a U.S. destroyer in the Atlantic in September 1941, President Roosevelt ordered the U.S. ships to fire back. An unofficial war had begun between the United States and Germany.

President Roosevelt met secretly with Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in August 1941 on a boat in the Atlantic. They agreed on a declaration for free trade and self-determination, disarmament of aggressor states (e.g., Japan and Germany) and freedom of the seas. This became known as the Atlantic Charter. The United States and Great Britain renounced any territorial ambitions, and expansion against the wishes of local populations was condemned. The Soviet Union soon endorsed the Atlantic Charter and the Charter later provided the ideological foundation for the United Nations.

By late 1941 President Roosevelt wanted the United States in the war, mainly to save England but also to avert attention from his failure to end the Great Depression. But the American people were not in favor of another world war. Many prominent Americans, such as Charles Lindbergh, opposed American involvement in this war. Many felt that the communist threat to the world was greater than the Nazi threat. Roosevelt needed a way to turn public opinion in favor of war, and generate enough public support to win the war.

The Japanese did the trick. On Dec. 7, 1941, the “day that will live in infamy,” the Japanese launched a surprise attack on our navy fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which was not yet a state. Some people believe that Roosevelt knew the Japanese would attack because American mathematicians had broken the Japanese code and intercepted and decoded the messages between Japanese officers. Also, the United States had a good radar system that should have been able to predict the attack an hour before it happened. But Roosevelt remained silent, allowing the American public to be outraged by this attack that sunk much of the U.S. Pacific fleet and killed 2,400 sailors. Congress declared war on Japan the next day, and then declared war on Germany (after Germany declared war on the U.S.). America thereby entered World War II.

By this time Japan had already taken over Manchuria in China and established a Japanese state there called Manchukuo. The Japanese viciously exploited and killed thousands of helpless Chinese in the Rape of Nanjing. Japan sought to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which was to be an Asia dominated by Japan and lacking in any western influence. Japan had also seized French Indochina (Southeast Asia, primarily Vietnam and Cambodia) in July 1941. Roosevelt had already suspended oil shipments to Japan, and blockaded Japan before it attacked Pearl Harbor. Japan’s attack was perhaps due to this blockade.

But Japan did not stop with its success at Pearl Harbor. It captured Wake Island and Guam in the Pacific, and then invaded the Philippines. General Douglas MacArthur was stationed on the Philippines at the time, and American and Filipino soldiers fought valiantly on the Bataan Peninsula to defend the island against the Japanese. General MacArthur escaped on a small speedboat, and the Japanese conquered the islands, including the island of Corregidor. From there the Japanese also conquered Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, Burma and the Burma Road. The Japanese seemed unstoppable.

It became clear that, for the first time in world history, air power would be decisive in battle. A college dropout named Colonel William "Billy" Mitchell had predicted this in the early 1920s, based in part on his personal experience in leading a large bombing attack on St. Mihiel near the end of World War I. Mitchell announced in the 1920s that Japan would attack us with aircraft and he felt American generals were incompetent and even treasonous in not guarding against this. In 1921 and 1923, Mitchell proved his point by personally flying over and bombing old American and captured German battleships to sink them easily.

In September 1925 a military airship crashed and killed many on board. Mitchell published a diatribe harshly criticizing his superiors, even accusing them of treason in ignoring the need for good military aviation. He was swiftly brought before a military court, known as a court-martial, for insubordination. He was tried for seven weeks, and convicted by a divided jury. One juror, widely thought to be the future General Douglas MacArthur, voted for acquittal. Mitchell was sentenced to a humiliating loss of rank and pay, and he quit. Only after he died and after World War II did President Truman honor him again.

But perhaps Billy Mitchell’s warnings did make a difference. In 1942 the United States sent Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle to bomb Tokyo and other Japanese cities, largely for symbolic purposes. In May 1942, a fleet of American and Australian ships intercepted a Japanese strike force and stopped Japanese advances at the Battle of Coral Sea. This was the first battle in world history in which both sides fought in aircraft based on aircraft carriers.

In June 1942, the Japanese brought together the largest naval force in the world near Midway Island in the Pacific. The American cryptographers had by this time deciphered enough of the Japanese messages to know that there was going to be an attack on Midway, and they knew roughly when the attack would occur. When the Japanese did attack, there was an American force waiting for them. On a reconnaissance mission an alert American pilot with superb eyesight spotted the Japanese fleet on the distant horizon. That gave the Americans the advantage of surprise, as the Japanese were not expecting the Americans to be ready. General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the Allied land forces in the Pacific, then embarked on a strategy of island-hopping to capture strategic islands surrounding Japanese positions. The Japanese, who were trained not to surrender, fought tenaciously for months before succumbing to American and Australian forces in the Battle of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands.

With the help of Americans, the Allies began to win victories against the Axis Powers in Europe. In late 1942, the Allies won the Battle of El Alamein, and in May 1943 General Dwight Eisenhower led the Allies to a victory against the feared Afrika Korps. Russia continued to hold its own in Stalingrad against the German army.

From northern Africa the Allies were able to invade Sicily in southern Italy, and oust Mussolini from power. The Germans restored him to power, but on June 4, 1944 the Allies broke through to Rome and by April 1945 the Germans were evacuating Italy. Mussolini was then found hiding in a truck. He was promptly shot and hung in a public square in Milan.

===American Issues – Korematsu and the Manhattan Project===

In the United States there were some American citizens of Japanese descent, particularly in California. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, fear and distrust about Japanese Americans arose. Rumors of surprise Japanese attacks on the west coast of the United States became common, and some American officials feared spying by Japanese Americans. The loyalty of American citizens of Japanese descent was doubted.

President Roosevelt, with the support of California Governor [[Earl Warren]] (who was later appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1950s), ordered that Americans of Japanese descent be forced to live in internment camps where they could be watched 24 hours a day. These included American citizens who had been born in the United States (the “Nisei”). Their property was confiscated also. Many of the internment camps were located away from the coasts in unfamiliar territories, such as near Indian reservations. Overall, 110,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly moved to internment camps during the war.

This policy constituted racial discrimination and some of the victims sued to stop it. But the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this racial discrimination in ''Korematsu v. United States'' (1944). Three dissented from this decision, which is considered one of the Court’s most embarrassing rulings. In 1948 Congress enacted the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act to compensate some of the victims for losing their homes and businesses. In 1980, Congress held hearings to review some of the personal hardships, and issued a report in 1983 condemning President Roosevelt’s removal order and the Supreme Court decision. But many Americans see nothing wrong with taking such measures in a time of crisis and war.

Beginning the day before the attack on Pearl Harbor, American scientists were worked on building an atomic bomb to help end the war. The code name for this project was the “Manhattan Project.”

Since 1900 scientists had known that the natural decay of radioactive elements produced large quantities of energy, much larger than the energy produced by chemical reactions. In 1914, a science-fiction writer named H.G. Wells described futuristic “atomic bombs” in a novel. In 1933, Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard had the idea that a nuclear chain reaction could make the rapid release of energy from the atom possible. Japan and Germany had projects to build a bomb too.

Szilard immigrated to the United States and was determined to persuade President Roosevelt to fund the building of an atomic bomb. Szilard felt that a letter to the President by Albert Einstein would help. Einstein, a pacifist, was known better than most physicists. Einstein agreed to sign a letter written by Szilard, which was then taken to President Roosevelt in early August 1939. The letter explained the feasibility and importance of developing an atomic bomb.

But President Roosevelt did little based on this letter, and instead allocated only a tiny $6,000 for such a project. Over two years passed, and no progress was made. It was not until Dec. 6, 1941, the day before Pearl Harbor, that an all-out effort to build an atomic bomb began under the direction of General Leslie Groves. Building on work performed by the brilliant physicist Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago, a massive and top-secret team of scientists assembled in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to build an atomic bomb. Managers of this project included J. Robert Oppenheimer, who later accused of being a communist sympathizer.

The scientists eventually succeeded, and rushed a few prototype bombs to the [[military]] for potential use near the end of the war in 1945. By then, Americans had won many victories against the Japanese in the Pacific, including capturing the island of Leyte in the Philippines in October 1944, and then defeating the Japanese at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The U.S. Marines defeated the Japanese at Iwo Jima, resulting in a famous picture of several Marines raising the American flag. But the American capture of Okinawa in June 1945 proved to be one of the bloodiest land battles of the war with Japan. It became clear that the Japanese would not agree to President Roosevelt’s demand for unconditional surrender, and that conquering Japan itself would cost the lives of perhaps a million American soldiers. (The Allied plan for possibly invading Japan was called ''Operation Downfall'', and it was canceled once the atomic bomb attacks were successful.) The Japanese were ready to fight to the death for their country. Increasingly, Japanese fighter pilots became kamikazes by flying their planes in suicide missions directly into American ships.

President Roosevelt, who knew he was dying but kept it from the American people in the election in November 1944, passed away on April 12, 1945. He thereby served less than three months of his new term. His vice president, Harry S Truman, became president despite not having been elected. Truman was a decent man from Missouri but was beyond his depth as the leader of the nation. He was not even aware that the Manhattan Project existed until late 1944. Joseph Stalin knew more about the progress of the Manhattan Project, through spies, than Truman did. Truman’s personality was to act impulsively, and he spent much of his spare time playing simple card games with friends.

He had never met Winston Churchill or other world leaders, and soon he began to meet with them as Americans were looking for ways to wrap up the war. In the summer of 1945 he received word from the Manhattan Project that the scientists had successfully built a few atomic bombs. It would be up to President Truman to decide if and how to use the atomic bomb.

===Victory===

Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again (this time with help from the Soviet Union). Operation Overlord was the code name for the massive challenge of invading Continental Europe, to enable liberating France from the Nazis and conquering Germany itself. It began on “D-Day”, June 6, 1944, with the largest invasion in the history of the world when the Allied forces staged a surprise landing at Normandy, France. There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below. German defense forces killed many of the initial soldiers who hit the beaches, but the Americans overpowered them and started moving through France. They were aided by the fact that Field Marshal Rommel was on leave on June 6. With America’s massive industrial capacity added to the Allies, they could now defeat the Axis Powers.

American General [[George Patton]] had perfected the art of lightning-fast tank maneuvers and unrestrained aggression, and he was the only Allied leader feared by the Germans. A few years earlier, Patton led his men in war games in Atlanta that were supposed to last for many days. Patton’s aggression and the enthusiasm of his men enabled him to win the games in just a day or two. Patton inspired a unique loyalty and spirit in his men that enabled his troops to win quicker and with few casualties than anyone else.

Patton’s Third Army rolled through France, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of the Netherlands, routing the Germans everywhere. The best the German army could do was turn and run. The French citizens lined the streets of Paris to cheer the Americans when they arrived and freed the city. One of Hitler’s last orders to his general in Paris was to detonate bombs to destroy great artworks at the Louvre Museum, which holds the Mona Lisa. The Nazi general received the order but courageously disobeyed it.

Hitler did not plan on surrendering. He launched a massive counterattack at the Battle of the Bulge (December 16-26, 1944), also known as the Ardennes Campaign. This was the last major German counteroffensive against advancing Allied troops during World War II. Hitler caught the Allied forces by surprise and inflicted heavy casualties on them in the bitterly cold Ardennes Forest.

The German forces sneaked through wooded and hilly country in Luxembourg and Belgium with the goal of reaching Antwerp. The Nazis amassed three armies totaling 250,000 soldiers for a massive attack against the Allies in the Ardennes Forest. The Nazis surrounded the 101st Airborne Division in southern Belgium, and demanded their surrender. The Americans refused to surrender. This battle was the largest ever fought by the U.S. Army. Nearly 600,000 American soldiers fought in it.

Allied resistance, especially the heroic effort by the 101st Airborne division, slowed the German forces just enough to prevent the Germans from making it to Antwerp. General Patton directed the Third Army to pray, and then he counterattacked. He relieved the German pressure on the 101st Airborne Division and by February the Germans were in full retreat.

General Patton could have taken all of Eastern Europe from the Germans, and the Russians. Patton planned to liberate Czechoslovakia but was told to stop in 1945. He was accused of insubordination as he pleaded with his superiors to allow him to free Eastern Europe from both Nazi and communist control. His superiors would not let Patton win more victories. The communist Soviet Union then acquired control of eastern Germany and much of Eastern Europe, placing it under communist rule for most of the remainder of the century. Soviet and American troops met at the Elbe River in Germany; Hitler and his wife, Eva Braun, committed suicide. Germany immediately surrendered on May 7, 1945, and V-E Day (Victory in Europe) was May 8, 1945.

Two months later the leaders of the Allied powers traveled to Potsdam, Germany, to plan for a post-war Europe. At this Potsdam Conference were Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Prime Minister Winston Churchill (who was there replaced by Clement Attlee after Churchill lost reelection in Britain), and President Truman (who had succeeded Roosevelt after his death in April). They met from July 17 to August 2.

Truman was no match for Stalin. Truman’s greatest interest was in playing cards with his “advisers”, one of whom was the communist spy Alger Hiss. Truman’s biggest concern was how Stalin might react to America’s development of an atomic bomb. Why Truman was worried about that is a mystery, as the United States was far more powerful than the Soviet Union at this point. But Truman gingerly told Stalin that America had developed a vastly more powerful bomb. Stalin simply shrugged his shoulders and took an attitude of “so what?”. One explanation is that Stalin knew more from his spies about the atomic bomb than Truman did. Another explanation is that Stalin had just acquired control of half of Germany and all of Eastern Europe and did not fear the United States in the slightest.

The big decision for Truman upon his return to the United States the first week of August 1945 was whether and how to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Historians say that Truman had already decided by late July, but had not yet given the orders. Truman was perhaps the most impulsive president in American history. He would make snap decisions and he bragged about how when he made a decision, he never second-guessed himself. Japan refused to agree to an unconditional surrender and it would have required 2 million American soldiers to invade and conquer the island. The Japanese soldiers fought to the death in hand-to-hand combat and were even engaging in suicide acts.

Some scientists (including Leo Szilard) asked Truman not to use the atomic bomb, but how else could the war be ended? Others suggested that Truman should warn the Japanese, and perhaps even display the awesome power of the bomb in a safe place to Japanese leaders before using it on cities. But for every compassionate approach, there was a counter-argument against it. Hawks (pro-war people) in America felt that if the Japanese leaders had prior warning, then they would put 100,000 of their American prisoners of war at risk and perhaps even place them in the cities we wanted to attack.

By August 1945 the mood in America was unsympathetic to the Japanese, perhaps even racist. But there is little or no evidence that racism played a role in Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb. All of Truman’s military advisers wanted to use the bomb. After the United States spent so much effort developing it, it was hard to imagine not using it. Also, Truman acted impulsively and decisively, and was not one to favor inaction over action. Cautious restraint was not part of Truman’s personality.
[[Image:Abomb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|“Mushroom cloud” caused by an atomic bomb explosion]]
Truman and the Allied Powers had issued the Potsdam Proclamation on July 25th to the Japanese government warning of “prompt and utter destruction” if it did not surrender immediately. Afterward, Truman dropped 27 million leaflets over Japanese cities with the same warning. The Japanese ignored them and showed no interest in surrendering. If the Japanese had shown any interest in ending the war, then the atomic bomb may not have been dropped. But the Japanese wanted to keep fighting.

Truman approved the dropping of the atomic bomb, and a bomber named ''Enola Gay'' carried out the mission on August 6, 1945 on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Truman bragged that he did not lose a night’s sleep over the decision. Truman’s reaction to the news was troubling to some. He was crossing the Atlantic on a ship and when the news reached him, he reportedly declared, “This is the greatest thing in history.” According to a witness, Truman supposedly “raced about the ship to spread the news, insisting that he had never made a happier announcement. ‘We have won the gamble,’ he told the assembled and cheering crew.” Japan, stunned, did not immediately surrender and some wonder whether it was given enough time to do so. On August 9th, a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Japan surrendered the next day, and World War II was over.

Ironically, the two Japanese cities hit by the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were two of the most Christian cities in all of Japan.
 

==Postwar==

With 60 million dead from the war and many cities destroyed, there was much work to do to rebuild. Famine and disease swept through the devastated areas of Europe. European dominance and hegemony in the world was over. Japan’s empire was conquered. There needed to be fundamental changes in both Germany and Japan.

In Germany, the Nuremberg Trials in 1946 reviewed the most heinous acts of Germans during the war. Josef Mengele fled undetected to Brazil, but other war criminals were caught, tried, and executed. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was appointed as the Chief Prosecutor. Jackson, who never attended college, was known to be a brilliant, conservative judge. Evidently he conducted the trial in a reasonably fair manner, as 3 persons were acquitted and a substantial percentage avoided the death penalty. Some of the Allies, perhaps fearing the release of embarrassing information, kept Rudolph Hess (a German who had mysteriously visited England during the war) from telling what he knew and he spent most of the trial drugged up by his captors. He was sentenced to life in jail and kept from the public until he died. Twelve were executed. There were more trials afterward, leading to the execution of 250 criminals. Ever since, the Nuremberg Trials have served as a precedent for future trials for misdeeds during war.

After Japan surrendered, the United States forced it to adopt a new constitution, a parliamentary form of government, and an admission by Emperor Hirohito that he was not divine. All men and women over the age of 20 obtained the right to vote, and the emperor was reduced to the role of a figurehead, like the monarchy in England today. The new Japanese constitution prohibited Japan from declaring war. American troops occupied Japan, and General Douglas MacArthur moved there to rule over the country.

The United States helped rebuild Japan’s economy, giving it aid, loans and investments. Wartime reparations were not required. Soon Japan grew into an economy power and its goods flooded the American markets. By the spring of 1952 the formal occupation of Japan by the United States ended, and the two nations had become allies with a mutual defense treaty. However, they began competing economically instead of militarily. Later many Americans would become bitter at how much we helped Japan after the war, as competition by Japanese companies eventually caused American industries (like the car industry) to fire workers.

The Philippines suffered from the war with Japan, and the Bell Trade Act of 1946 gave the Philippines $800 million in war damages in exchange for free trade provisions. These provisions included a waiver of all import duties on goods shipped by America to the Philippines and equal access by Americans to Filipino natural resources. The Act, which both Congress and the Philippines approved, also pegged the Filipino currency (the peso) to the American dollar and prohibited the Philippines from selling products that might "come into substantial competition" with U.S.-made goods. For those reasons Filipino nationalists criticized the law as American interference in their sovereignty. In 1955, the Laurel-Langley Agreement modified this law on terms more favorable to the Philippines.

Large amounts of economic aid flowed to Europe. The Marshall Plan (named after U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall) was passed by Congress in 1948 to offer money to European nations to rebuild. Western Europe and Yugoslavia received vast aid from the Marshall Plan.

==Cold War==

The “Cold War” began at the end of World War II. It was hostility between communism and capitalism, and between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was “cold” because no shots were fired between the two large nations. But it was very much a war.

Even before World War II ended, the foundation was laid for the Cold War. At the conference among the Allied Powers at Yalta, a city on the Black Sea, a sick and dying President Roosevelt agreed to allow the Soviet Union to occupy eastern Germany after the war. Roosevelt also promised Stalin and the Soviet Union reparations from Germany, two warm-water ports, the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin, and railroad rights in Manchuria. What did the United States receive in return? Stalin made only two promises, neither of which was worth anything. First, the Soviet Union agreed to join the war against Japan. But the Soviet Union was no help in defeating the Japanese. Second, Stalin agreed to hold free elections in Eastern Europe. This was a complete lie and Stalin never kept that promise.

In utter disregard of his promise at Yalta, Stalin established communist governments controlled by the Soviet Union in all these eastern European countries: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. These became “satellite” countries of the Soviet Union, meaning their policies revolved around and were controlled by the Soviet Union.

Germany itself was divided between communist and free portions. The eastern side became the German Democratic Republic, which was merely a communist satellite of the Soviet Union and became known as “East Germany.” The western side in 1947 became the Federal Republic of Germany. As described in a memorable post-war speech by Winston Churchill in Missouri, the Soviet Union had dropped an “iron curtain” across Eastern Europe.

Berlin, the historic capital city of Germany, was located in the eastern side and the Allied Powers agreed to split that city into free and communist parts. Stalin then showed his hatred of freedom by blockading the delivery of goods to the free part of Berlin, which was as easy as simply stopping the railroads from traveling to Berlin from the west. The Allies reacted by implementing a massive airlift of foods and supplies to West Berlin. Every day huge numbers of airplanes flew to and from West Berlin to carry enough cargo to support a large city. This Berlin Airlift lasted nearly 11 months, from June 1948 to May 1949, until the Soviet Union backed down and lifted the ground blockade.

A decade later, in 1961, the Soviet Union reacted to a different problem: huge numbers of refugees fleeing communism in East Berlin to live in the free West Berlin. While President Kennedy was enjoying a long, relaxing weekend, the communists built a concrete wall to separate East Berlin from West Berlin. Barbed wire was placed atop this “Berlin Wall,” and armed guards were posted along it to shoot and kill anyone trying to escape from the East into the West (no one would want to go in the opposite direction). Stories of daring and sometimes successful escapes are fascinating to read. This was the wall at which President Ronald Reagan stood in the late 1980s demanding that the head of the Soviet Union “tear down this wall!”

Back in 1945, the United Nations was set up by Soviet spy Alger Hiss, who was a confidant of Roosevelt, initially in San Francisco. The United Nations charter established a General Assembly on the principle of one vote per nation. There was an 11-member Security Council on which Great Britain, China, the United States, France and the Soviet Union had permanent seats. The other seats rotate and have representative nations from around the world. Today the Security Council has 15 seats, and communist Hugo Chavez from Venezuela seeks a seat on it. Any nation on the Security Council can veto any proposal. The United Nations moved to New York City where it sits today, and many feel it is ineffective or even counterproductive. Supporters of the United Nations say that it is important to promote peace and participate in peacekeeping operations.

The United States had several reactions to the Cold War. One was a policy of “containment”, whereby America helped smaller countries seeking to resist the spread of communism to them. The Truman Doctrine was a statement of support to Greece and Turkey against communist advances, and Congress authorized military and economic aid.

Military alliances formed on both sides. After the Berlin blockade in 1949, western countries joined together as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In response, in 1955, the Soviet Union formed a communist alliance in the Warsaw Pact, which included all the communist countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself. Another organization, the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), brought together the United States, Great Britain, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq to stop communist advances in the Middle East (Southwest Asia). SEATO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, performed the same function in the Far East. Members included the United States, Great Britain, France, Thailand, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.

Technology played a key role in the Cold War. The United States developed the atomic bomb in 1945. Using secrets stolen from the United States, the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949. To stay one step ahead, the United States developed the far more powerful hydrogen bomb (H-bomb) in 1952. This used nuclear fusion and is called a “thermonuclear weapon.” The Soviet Union developed an H-bomb for itself nine months later. Both nations began to develop huge inventories of these bombs, and advocated a policy of “brinkmanship” or the willingness to do whatever was necessary to defend their interests.

Spying between the nations took advantages of improvements in space technology. First both the United States and Soviet Union developed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to shoot each other with nuclear arms. Then the Soviet Union launched the first unmanned satellite, known as Sputnik I, into outer space in 1957. This greatly alarmed Americans, and the United States responded by launching its own satellite in 1958 and later initiating a mission to land on the Moon.

Americans developed a spy plane that could fly undetected at very high altitudes, called the “U-2”. When one fell to the earth in Soviet territory in 1960, President Eisenhower arranged for his Administration official to deny that America was spying. But the pilot disobeyed his orders to kill himself before being captured, and he was produced live in the Soviet Union for the television cameras! The Soviets then put him on a phony trial (known as a “show trial” because its real purpose is to humiliate an enemy), and an embarrassed United States had to beg for his return, to which the Soviets ultimately agreed in a prisoner exchange. It was never fully understood how the plane could have landed safely, and the pilot (Francis Gary Powers) died two decades later while operating a traffic helicopter. The U-2 incident forced cancellation of a meeting between President Eisenhower and the aggressive Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev.

==China==

The Japanese devastated China during World War II. The Nationalist Chinese led by Chiang Kai-shek received aid from the United States to fight against the Japanese, but in reality they needed that money to prepare for civil war against the communists led by Mao Zedong. After the war, the communists attempted to conquer the Nationalists. Civil war raged from 1946 to 1949. Due to many desertions by soldiers from the Nationalist army to the communists, Mao prevailed by October 1949. Mao had promised land for the peasants and renamed the country the People’s Republic of China. Chiang fled with Nationalists to the island of Formosa, and renamed it the Republic of China (Taiwan), which the United States supported. By February 1950, the communists in the Soviet Union signed a friendship pact with the Chinese communists. Fear gripped the free world.

Chairman Mao quickly extended communist control to Inner Mongolia and Tibet in 1950-51, causing the Dalai Lama to flee to India in 1959. Tibet attempted a revolution that year, but the Chinese brutally repressed the revolution and Buddhism. India received many refugees and, after a 1962 border dispute, has been on tense terms with China ever since.

Life under Chairman Mao included an Agrarian Land Reform Law of 1950, when Mao seized property and distributed it to peasants, and a policy of forcing peasants to work on collective farms from 1952 to 1957. Women were treated like men. Mao imitated the five-year plans of the communist Soviet Union.

From 1958 to 1961, Mao implemented the misnamed “Great Leap Forward,” where he established large collective farms composed of 25,000 people working on thousands of acres per farm. These communes prohibited private possessions and everyone lived in communal housing. Predictably, people worked less and less because there was no private property as an incentive. A great famine resulted and nearly 30 million Chinese died.

Mao had a disagreement with the communists in the Soviet Union known as the “Sino-Soviet rift,” and he started to allow other communists in China to make policy. They began to use capitalist principles such as allowing people to own their land and profit from sales. In 1966, Mao reacted to this with the Cultural Revolution, where everyone intelligent or artistic was imprisoned or killed. Schools and universities were closed. Mao’s “Red Guards” (high school and college students who were militant communists) enforced the Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping was imprisoned, and Zhou Enlai was placed in seclusion. Chaos reigned.

Finally Mao Zedong died in 1976, and Deng Xiaoping gained control over the radicals and ended the Cultural Revolution.
 
==Korean War==
[[Image:Inchon Landing.jpg|right]]
The Cold War broke out into a real war in 1950 between communist North Korea and free South Korea. The North Koreans invaded across the 38th parallel into South Korea, which petitioned the United Nations for help. The Soviet Union at the time was boycotting its seat in the Security Council due to a decision to seat Taiwan, and thus it lacked a veto for the decision by the United Nations to send an international force to South Korea under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. But the international force was ineffective in blocking the advancing, well-trained communist soldiers from North Korea.

In September 1950, General MacArthur used an idea he had months earlier, but which all his advisers had rejected as too risky: an amphibious maneuver known as the “Inchon landing.” He turned North Korean aggression against itself by having his soldiers secretly flee on boats and then land, with reinforcements from other sources, north of the enemy to cut off their supply lines on a peninsula (see map).

That single maneuver turned certain defeat into certain victory, as the North Korean army was then stuck without supplies. But a month later communist Chinese began flooding into North Korea by the hundreds of thousands to help the fellow communists. General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur for his subordination. MacArthur had disobeyed orders from his commander-in-chief, and faced consequences for that. In July 1953, a ceasefire was signed reestablishing the 38th parallel as the dividing line. A demilitarized zone on both sides exists to this day.

The North Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung, ruled the country for decades and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Il, who recently alarmed the world by saying he has nuclear weapons. South Korea, meanwhile, has grown, with capitalism, far stronger than North Korea. South Korea had its first free elections in 1987.

Repeated attempts to reunite North and South Korea have been total failures, as North Korea remains completely communist (like China and Cuba) while South Korea is one of the most Christian and free enterprise nations in the world. The South Korean electronics company Samsung has risen to dominance in the computer video market (it makes remarkable computer and television screens), and the South Korean car company Hyundai has also been successful in competing against the Japanese and American companies.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:World History lectures]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:World History Lecture 12}}

Talk:World History Homework Eleven - Model

2009-04-26T15:03:16Z

ClementB: Created page with 'IMO, some of the answers - and their evaluation - are a little bit problematic. *The Great War was not a suburbian soccer match where the mothers of the players pretend not to k...'

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-26T04:29:34Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement:

::<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

:I don't know why you keep avoiding the obvious: the theory of relativity ''does'' plainly assume a maximum fixed velocity for light, known as ''c''. If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.

:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)

::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....

::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.

::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::My restated postulate that the "speed of light can never be increased" does preclude the scenario you describe, whereby a static observer increases the observed speed of light with the assistance of a moving observer. This is expressly precluded by my restatement of the postulate.

:::But your postulate about "independent of the motion of the light source" does not preclude increasing the speed of light beyond the ordinarily observed "c". Indeed, some relativists now insist that "c" need not be the ordinarily observed speed of light, but can be any assumed upper bound on the speed of light, and might be much greater than "c" as traditionally defined. My postulate is what underlies the above fundamental formula of relativity; your postulate requires redefining "c" in the above formula.

:::Your biblical quote is a good start but it's unclear what it means, if anything, to you. Do you ever ''apply'' the Bible in your quest for the truth? Do you earnestly seek the truth?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::If your formulation of Einstein's postulates is superior Pauli's formulation (as quoted by me), why do physicists around the world use Pauli's version in text books, articles, etc. ? Why did Einstein, Sommerfeld, Born, etc. endorsed Pauli's article, where he stated the postulates the way I do? Is yours a new insight into the world of special relativity which all the physicists of today seem to have missed?

::::I'm sorry that you found the biblical quote unclear.

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:29, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Two

2009-04-26T04:17:37Z

ClementB:

Italy was a member of the ''Triple Alliance''. Yet, didn't join the war on side of Germany and Austria-Hungary, but as late as 1915 as an allied force.
The reason: the ''Triple Alliance'' was created for defensive purposes, and Italy deemed the war against Serbia as aggressive.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:20, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

: Your poor grammar obscures your point. Could you restate more clearly?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:*Italy became of member of the ''Triple Alliance'' in 1882
:*Italy remained neutral in 1914, claiming that the ''Triple Alliance'' was intended for defensive purposes only
:*Italy joined the war on side of the allied forces in 1915
:*So, Italy had ties to the central powers, but instead of choosing sides in 1914, it did so in 1915.
:[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:33, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:: You give too much credit to the motivation underlying Mussolini's positions. He switched sides because the Allied forces promised him more. Then he ended up with less than he was promised, after he failed to achieve much in battle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Mussolini? '''Mussolini???''' My, you ''are'' in the wrong war. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:53, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::No, Mussolini was the leader of the socialists in Italy in World War I, and his change in position mirrored his nation's.[http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:11, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Mussolini had changed his position from supporting absolute neutrality (his party's position) to an intervention on behalf of the allied forces.
::::He was mainly a journalist at this time, one of the most prominent socialists, but not ''the leader of the socialists in Italy''
::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:17, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Two

2009-04-26T03:53:36Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Two

2009-04-26T03:33:30Z

ClementB:

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Two

2009-04-26T03:20:35Z

ClementB: Created page with 'Italy was a member of the ''Triple Alliance''. Yet, didn't join the war on side of Germany and Austria-Hungary, but as late as 1915 as an allied force. The reason: the ''Triple ...'

Talk:World History Homework Eleven Answers - Student Three

2009-04-26T03:09:30Z

ClementB: Created page with '''Excellent. Note that Italy switched sides during the war. '' No. Wrong War. ~~~~'

''Excellent. Note that Italy switched sides during the war. ''
No. Wrong War.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 23:09, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-26T03:03:45Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */ typo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement:

::<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

:I don't know why you keep avoiding the obvious: the theory of relativity ''does'' plainly assume a maximum fixed velocity for light, known as ''c''. If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.

:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)

::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....

::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.

::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Claus von Stauffenberg

2009-04-26T02:54:33Z

ClementB: /* Early Life */ sp

'''Claus Philip Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg''' (November 15, 1907 Jettingen - July 20, 1944, [[Berlin]]) was the [[Wehrmacht]] [[Colonel]] who masterminded the [[July 20 Plot]] against the life of [[Adolf Hitler]]. He is regarded as one of the greatest heroes in [[German History]].

==Early Life==
Count Claus von Stauffenberg was born in 1907 to Count Alfred von Stauffenberg, Lord Chamberlain of the [[Kingdom of Wuerttemberg]] (''Württemberg'') , and Countess Caroline von Uexkuell-Gyllenband (''Üxküll-Gyllenband''). His bearing and that of his brothers was greatly influenced by their father's responsibilities at the Royal Court at [[Stuttgart]]. Germany's defeat in [[World War I]] and the collapse of the monarchy devastated the Stauffenberg family. In 1918, Claus was heard to say, "My Germany cannot perish: if she goes down now, she will rise again strong and great: after all, there is still a God."<ref>Peter Hoffman, "Stauffenberg: A Family History 1905-1944," page 13.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Stauffenberg, Claus Schenk Graf von}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Nazis]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-26T02:39:18Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:Clement:

::<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

:I don't know why you keep avoiding the obvious: the theory of relativity ''does'' plainly assume a maximum fixed velocity for light, known as ''c''. If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.

:As to the Bible, why do you avoid it so much? I cite it repeatedly in my history course, but I haven't seen you cite a passage from it yet despite all your commentary about history. Do you ever cite a specific passage from the Bible? I'd like to see just one example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::''Whoever digs a pit may fall into it; whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. Whoever quarries stones may be injured by them; whoever splits logs may be endangered by them. If the ax is dull and its edge unsharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success. '' (Ecclesiastes 10:8-10)

::'' If you don't believe me, then plug in a velocity ''v'' greater than ''c'' and watch what happens to the above equation.'' But, as you said, in the formula for time dilation, ''c'' represents the speed of light. Plug in a velocity greater than 300,000 km/sec for ''c'' and see what happens! Nothing much....

::I said above: Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.

::In fact, that's my biggest rub with your formulation.

::The existence of a ''maximum fixed velocity for light'' (though not it's quantity) is a consequence of Einstein's postulates '''if they are stated correctly'''.

::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 22:39, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Prime number

2009-04-25T16:40:57Z

ClementB: /* Sieve of Eratosthenes */ changed pic of sieve

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|thumb|[[Eratosthenes]].]]
A '''prime number''' is a [[natural number]] greater than 1 that is [[divisible]] by only 1 and itself. Equivalently, the number has exactly two [[factor]]s, 1 and itself. The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...

[[Leonhard Euler]] wrote: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

There are infinitely many primes. The only [[even]] prime number is 2.

==Sieve of Eratosthenes==
{|class="wikitable" align="right"
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfEratosthenes}}
|-
|Here, '''n''' equals 144
|}
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you can use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers from 1 to ''n''. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

The number of primes smaller than a given number <math>N</math> is roughly <math>\frac{N}{\ln(N)}</math>, where <math>\ln(N)</math> is the [[natural logarithm]] (base ''[[e]]'') of <math>N</math>.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[Prime Number Theorem]].

==How many prime numbers==
{{main|Prime Number Theorem}}

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes. Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this N. N would not be divisible by any number in the set--there would always be a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes (by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]), N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.

Another proof that there are infinitely many primes shows something stronger, namely the sum of the reciprocals of primes less than n "grows like" log(log(n)):
<math>\sum_{p\le x}p^{-1}\approx\log\log x</math>

==Unique Factorization==
{{main|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic}}

According to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique [[factorization]] into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1, can be expressed as a product of one or more primes in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

Finding the prime factors for large numbers (having hundreds of digits) can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers.

==Alternative Definition==
Beyond the integers, mathematicians are interested in other structures with addition and multiplication; they are called [[Ring_(mathematics)|ring]]s. When working in rings, mathematicians use a different definition for a "prime" element: <blockquote>''A prime element is a non-unit (i.e., not 1 or -1 for the integers) which whenever it divides the product of two numbers will divide at least one of the factors.''</blockquote>

Or in symbolic notation:

<math>p \in \mathbb{Z} \quad prime :\Leftrightarrow p \not\in \{-1, 1\} \wedge (\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}: p \vert ab \Rightarrow p \vert a \vee p \vert b) </math>

For the integers, this definition is equivalent to the one stated above. However in general the two definitions are not equivalent. The earlier definition is still important in rings, and is given the name [[irreducibility]], since it literally states that the element cannot be broken into smaller pieces.

The preference for this alternate definition of "prime" is that this definition gives you unique [[factorization]] theorems analogous to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]. For more information, consult an abstract algebra book<ref>'''Abstract Algebra: An Introduction''', Thomas Hungerford. Brooks Cole; 2 edition (1996)</ref>

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--N is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true--if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==Open Problems about Prime Numbers==

===The Largest Known Prime===

The largest known prime is ''232582657-1''; it was discovered by the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS''')<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref>, a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html</ref>

===Mersenne Prime===
A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some [[prime number]]<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref>. As of April, 2007, only 44 Mersenne Primes have been found. The largest known prime ''232582657-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

===Twin primes===
{{main|twin primes}}

[[Twin primes]] or '''prime twins''' are pairs of prime number which differ from each other by only 2. Since all primes other than 2 are odd numbers, this is the closest two primes can be to each other, with the exception of 2 and 3. The first few twin primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, and 29 and 31.

Twin primes become increasingly scarce among larger numbers. For example, there are twenty-four sets of twin primes between 0 and 500, but only eleven sets between 500 and 1000. Computer programmes have calculated some extremely large sets of twin primes. While there are undoubtedly an unlimited number of primes, opinions differ among mathematicians whether there is also an infinite number of twin primes or whether there is an upper limit. This debate is captured by the [[twin primes conjecture]]

Mathematicians have long been fascinated by twin primes and the relationship between them. There seems to be no distinct pattern in their occurrence. For example, there are no twin primes between 700 and 800, or between 900 and 1000, but there are five sets between 800 and 900 (809 and 811; 821 and 823; 827 and 829; 857 and 859; 881 and 883).

===Goldbach's conjecture===

Goldbach's conjecture asserts that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

===Riemann hypothesis===
{{main|Riemann hypothesis}}

The [[Riemann hypothesis]] is related to patterns in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such [[cryptographic]] schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==See also==

* [[Composite number]]
* [[Fibonacci sequence]]
* [[Perfect number]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
*[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archive]
*[http://educ.queensu.ca/%7Efmc/december2003/Sieve.html Sieve of Eratosthenes]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]

User talk:RSchlafly

2009-04-25T16:28:30Z

ClementB: /* Prime Number */ new section

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

== Clean ==

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

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear RSchlafly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 1992 Election ==

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

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

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

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

==Catch-22==

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

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

Hi! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Vandal==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Thanks for the Unblock ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Merry Christmas ==

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

== Happy New Year, Roger! ==

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

== Continuum ==

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

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

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

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

== Prime Number ==

You were the last editor to change the article on [[Prime Number]]s. Could you have a look at the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes''? I tried to raise the interest in changing the - IMO poor - picture on [[Talk:Main Page]], [[Talk:Prime Number]] and [[File talk:Prime number.gif]], but no action took place. Could you have a look into it?
Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:28, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Karl Strecker

2009-04-25T14:54:01Z

ClementB: defaultsort

General '''Karl Strecker''' was born in Radmansdorf, [[Germany]] in 1884. He served in the German Army in [[World War I]]. He rejoined the German Army in 1935 and gained the rank of General. In 1942 during [[World War II]] he led the German XI Army Corps at the [[Battle of Stalingrad]]. On February 2 1943, Strecker was the last German general to surrender to the [[Red Army]] at Stalingrad. He died in 1973.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Strecker, Karl}}
[[Category:World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:German People]]

Friedrich von Paulus

2009-04-25T14:53:39Z

ClementB: defaultsort

Field Marshal '''Friedrich Paulus''' (1890-1957) led the [[German]] Sixth Army during the [[Battle of Stalingrad]]. On November 23 1942, the Sixth Army was surrounded by Soviet forces. On January 31 1943, Paulus surrendered to the [[Red Army]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Paulus, Friedrich}}
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:World War II Commanders]]

Friedrich Freiherr von Broich

2009-04-25T14:53:16Z

ClementB: defaultsort

General '''Friedrich Freiherr von Broich''' (1896-1974) served in the [[German]] Army as a junior officer in [[World War I]]. He remained in the Army after the war. He took part in [[World War II]].

In 1942 he was sent to [[Tunisia]] as part of the [[Afrika Korps]] led by Marshal [[Erwin Rommel]]. In February 1943 he took command of the 10th [[Panzer]] division. His operations officer was [[Colonel]] [[Claus von Stauffenberg]], who in 1944 tried to kill [[Adolf Hitler]]. Von Broich and von Stauffenberg inflicted severe defeats on the [[U.S. Army]] at Sidi Bou Zid and the [[Battle of Kasserine Pass]]. Von Broich was captured by the [[British]] on May 12 1943. He spent the rest of the war as a [[POW]]. He died in 1974.[http://www.specialcamp11.fsnet.co.uk/Generalleutnant Fritz Freiherr von Broich.htm]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Broich, Friedrich}}
[[Category:World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:German People]]

Erich Ludendorff

2009-04-25T14:52:19Z

ClementB: defaultsort

'''Erich Ludendorff''' (1865 - 1937) was the [[German]] general who, along with [[Paul von Hindenburg]], was the leading force in defeating the [[Russians]] in [[World War I]] particularly at the [[Battle of Tannenberg]] and [[Masurian Lakes]].

Ludendorff was responsible for much of the German military policy and for requesting an [[armistice]] with the allied forces to put an end to World War I. After the war he led a nationalist movement and took part with [[Hitler]] in his abortive coup attempt in [[Munich]] in 1923 (the so-called [[Beer Hall Putsch]]). However, Ludendorff severed his relationship with Hitler soon thereafter.

==Sources==

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823750.html

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ludendoff, Erich}}
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

Claus von Stauffenberg

2009-04-25T14:51:28Z

ClementB: defaultsort

'''Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg''' (1905 - July 20, 1944, [[Berlin]]) was a [[Wehrmacht]] [[Colonel]] who masterminded the [[July 20th Plot]] against the life of [[Adolf Hitler]]. He is regarded as one of the greatest heroes in [[German History]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Stauffenberg, Claus Schenk Graf von}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:German Resistance]]

Claus von Stauffenberg

2009-04-25T14:50:18Z

ClementB: sp

'''Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg''' (1905 - July 20, 1944, [[Berlin]]) was a [[Wehrmacht]] [[Colonel]] who masterminded the [[July 20th Plot]] against the life of [[Adolf Hitler]]. He is regarded as one of the greatest heroes in [[German History]].

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:German Resistance]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-25T04:10:44Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Clement, there's no substance in your replies. You're just imitating and copying. This is a site for thinking. Please address the ''substance'' of my comments above. [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:33, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

<- unindent: ''Please address the substance of my comments above.'' Fine.
* ''Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???).'': I said that ''I keep it out of my science or history classes'', I don't censor it from history.
* '' I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here.'' I didn't quote the Bible, but I mentioned it - as I do now
* ''You seem to quote everything and everyone except the Bible.'' The Bible doesn't say much about the history of Prussia, the political parties Orwell belonged to, or the Theory of Special Relativity. You haven't quoted the Bible on these issues neither. At the moment, I try to treat Conservapedia as an ''educational'' source, not a ''spiritual'' one.
* '' You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate.'' If you want to state Einstein's postulates, you should try to represent them truthfully, i.e., use a wording which is accepted in physics. We're talking about something quite elementary, so a look in a text book should help. '''You still haven't given any source for your formulation of the postulates'''. Your formulation: the ''speed of light can never be increased'' doesn't prevent that a static observer '''A''' and a moving observer '''B''' measure different quantities for the speed of light. It only implicates that these measurements doesn't differ from their own earlier - or later - done measurements.
* '' I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it.'' Pauli is nowadays most popular for his exclusion principle. But to say that ''had nothing to do with relativity'' is downright comical.
* '' I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. '' First, it isn't a description, it's a widespread formulation of Einstein's postulates. Second, yes the postulates don't ''preclude expressly'' that the speed of light increases. As BHarlan stated above, that's a conclusion of the postulates.
* ''Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.'' What ''formulas for relativity'' are you referring to?
Yes, I copied your edits above. I tried to address any statement of your edit. As for substance: Calling Pauli's work inadequate, and stating that he had ''nothing to do with the theory of relativity'' - though he wrote one of the most prominent articles on this subject made me cringe.
In a discussion, someone will always have the last word - at least temporarily. But you'll have the last word on the article, as I won't alter it against your will.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 00:10, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T20:19:39Z

ClementB: /* Postulates of Special Relativity */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

::::::::::::* ''Pauli's description is inadequate'' That's quite a surprise:
::::::::::::* Ever since this 1921 article on relativity in the ''Encyklopaedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften '', Pauli is seen as a kind of expert. This article was praised by A. Einstein himself - and many others (Born, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld). It's one of the most widespread elaborations of the theory, and that's why I quoted it in its English translation
::::::::::::* It's not a description. It's a formulation of the ''postulates of relativity''
::::::::::::* That the brilliance of the postulates: they don't have to state everything ''expressly'', a lot of things are follow ''implicitly''
::::::::::::* These ''formulas for relativity'' are conclusions from the postulates.
::::::::::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:19, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T20:05:08Z

ClementB: /* Regarding Trotsky */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Well????

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

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

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

== Theory of Relativity ==

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

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

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and from a source you seem to trust:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

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

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::::: Perhaps you "keep" the Bible "out of" many fields of inquiry, not just science and history (and why censor the Bible from history???). I've never seen you quote or mention the Bible in any of your numerous edits here. You seem to quote everything and everyone ''except'' the Bible.

::::::::::: You've never explained why you think the lecture is incorrect with respect to its current formulation of the relativity postulate. I'm not even sure you do disagree with it, except that you say it is not how Pauli (who had nothing to do with relativity) described it. I have explained why Pauli's description is inadequate: his description ("the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source") does not expressly preclude somehow increasing the speed of light. Yet the formulas for relativity do assume that is impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]]

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The points above about Trotsky and Orwell are interesting, and I've spent some time without success trying to confirm t. Unfortunately, you don't provide any support for your claims. There's no doubt that Orwell fought against the communists, and that changed his view of them. There also seems to be no doubt that Trotsky said what the lecture states. The very, very subtle distinction between drawn above does not change the essential substance of the lecture, even if the claims are true.

::: I welcome a supported, well-written improvement on the lecture, but not something that would tend to confuse students with hairsplitting and debatable distinctions. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The lecture says Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto. Nicholas says that he used it as a way to summarize and criticize his opponent, Stalin. That's not a subtle distinction - Nicholas and the lecture report precisely opposite versions! So it's probably worth "getting to the bottom of" if indeed the lecture contains a serious inaccuracy. [EDIT]: This seems to be the source: "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch11.htm The Revolution Betrayed]" by Leon Trotsky, Chapter 11. The quote, a little more than halfway down, reads:

::::::...during the “purgations” in the last month of 1935 and the first half of 1936, hundreds of thousands of members of the party were again expelled, among them several tens of thousands of “Trotskyists.” The most active were immediately arrested and thrown into prisons and concentration camps. As to the rest, Stalin, through Pravda, openly advised the local organs not to give them work. In a country where the sole employer is the state, this means death by slow starvation. '''The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.''' Exactly how many Bolsheviks have been expelled, arrested, exiled, exterminated, since 1923, when the era of Bonapartism opened, we shall find out when we go through the archives of Stalin’s political police.
::::I have to say that this supports Nicholas's reading of it, since Trotsky is using the phrase to describe Stalin's reign of terror, and definitely sees the altered adage as a Very Bad Thing. [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 15:51, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, the lecture does not say that "Trotsky used the phrase as his personal motto." The lecture says it was Trotsky's motto (about the communist regime). I'll add the parenthetical to avoid misinterpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:58, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Orwell was a member of the POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification ). He wrote a book about it, ''Homage to Catalonia''. That's hardly obscure. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Puebla

2009-04-24T13:52:24Z

ClementB: Heróica Puebla de Zaragoza

'''Puebla''' is the fourth largest city in [[Mexico]] and is the capital of the state of the same name. Founded in 1532 by Sebastian Ramirez de Fuenleal, archbishop of Santo Domingo, it became see of the bishopric originally created in 1526 at [[Tlaxcala]]<ref>Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911</ref>. On [[Cinco de Mayo|May 5th]], 1862, Mexican forces under General Ignacio Zaragoza defeated the [[France|French]] army in Puebla. This victory is celebrated every '[[Cinco de Mayo]]'. Puebla is sometimes called 'Puebla de los Angeles' (''The City of [[Angels]]''), though the official name is 'Heróica Puebla de Zaragoza' (''Heroic Puebla of Zaragoza''). This city is listed as a UNESCO [[World Heritage Site]].

It is also one of the most [[Catholic]] cities in Mexico.

== See also ==

*[[Mexican History]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Mexican Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Mexican States]]

File talk:Prime number.gif

2009-04-24T13:41:18Z

ClementB:

#There is an obvious error in this pic (13)!!
#the pic isn't an actual sieve, it's just the beginning of an exercise!!!
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:04, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Who said it is a sieve? How could be a mistake then? Its purpose is to illustrate prime numbers. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''You''' included the pic in the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes'' of the article [[Prime Number]]. Obviously, I thought that it should represent a sieve. It does so poorly. Here is a correct one
::{|
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}
|}
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:40, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

File talk:Prime number.gif

2009-04-24T13:40:08Z

ClementB:

#There is an obvious error in this pic (13)!!
#the pic isn't an actual sieve, it's just the beginning of an exercise!!!
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:04, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Who said it is a sieve? How could be a mistake then? Its purpose is to illustrate prime numbers. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::'''You''' included the pic in the section ''Sieve of Eratosthenes'' of the article [[Prime Number]]. Obviously, I thought that it should represent a sieve. It does so poorly. Here is a correct one
::{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:40, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Prime number

2009-04-24T13:36:45Z

ClementB: /* Sieve of Eratosthenes */ new section

== Primality testing - Problems with the number 4 ==

When testing whether a number ''N'' is divisible by ''s'', using values of ''s'' from 2 to ''N'' - 1, when ''N'' is 4, the method correctly determines that 4 is not prime, because it is divisible by 2. This example is in the C programming language.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < N - 1; ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

However, when using values of ''m'' from 2 to the square root of ''n'', when ''n'' is 4, an error can occur. Since 2 is the square root of 4, the test range is 2 to 2, and, if the range is exclusive, as in a for-loop, the whole test is skipped, and 4 is incorrectly determined to be a prime number.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s < sqrt(N); ++s) {
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Isaac4given|Isaac4given]] 11:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised that 9 worked. Try.
<blockquote><pre>
for (s = 2; s <= sqrt(N); ++s) { // less than or equal to catch perfect squares
if (N % s == 0) {
printf("N is not a prime number.");
}
}
</pre></blockquote>

[[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Flaw in proof ==

"It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem. If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1. The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1)." This argument doesn't work. 510511 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 + 1, but it's not prime. [[User:Sepura|Sepura]] 13:21, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:You misunderstand the argument. Since you multiplied only the first 7 primes to get 510510, your hypothesis (the thing to be contradicted in this proof by contradiction) is that those 7 numbers constitute the complete finite set of primes. And in fact, 510511 is not divisible by any of them. Therefore they are not the complete set of primes. And the same argument can be made for any hypothesized finite set. Therefore, no finite set can be the complete set of primes. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:15, 20 February 2008 (EST)

:: This is only sort of correct. To do it that way makes a proof by contradiction when you would otherwise have a constructive proof. This is suboptimal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:58, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why Mathematicians Prefer the Alternative Definition==
Because mathematician make a distinction between irreducible elements (p irred. <=> (a|p => a unit or a=p)) and prime elements (p prime <=> (for all a,b: p|ab => p|a or p|b). While these two properties coincide on <math>\mathbf{Z}</math>, they differ e.g., on <math>\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]</math>: here 3 is irreducible, but not a prime, as <math>21 = 3 \cdot 7 = (1 + 2 \sqrt{-5})(1 - 2 \sqrt{-5})</math> --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== NP Complete ==

Please fix the incorrect statement about the NP-completeness of prime factorization. In fact, prime factorization is ''known'' not to be in NPC unless P=NP. --[[User:DiogenesTonne|DiogenesTonne]] 17:59, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Since this article is currently protected... ==

You can't have an article on primes that discusses primality testing and doesn't mention Agrawal's algorithm. There needs to be a mention of the AKS test which allows primality testing in polynomial time. This was a big deal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:49, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Suggested addition: In 2002 Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena constructed an algorithm that determined primality in polynomial time. This algorithm was based off of a generalization of Fermat's Little Theoren.[http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/manindra/algebra/primality_v6.pdf]

How's that for starters? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 12:50, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Sieve of Eratosthenes ==

The current illustration is - at least - misleading. I made the following table, which is an ''actual'' sieve for the numbers 1 - 100. Could it be included?
{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}
(yes, I added an ''h'' in the name, sorry )
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:36, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes

2009-04-24T13:32:09Z

ClementB: Created page with '{|class="wikitable" |1 !style="color:#0000FF"|2 !style="color:#00FF00"|3 |style="background:#0000FF"|4 !style="color:#ff0000"|5 |style="background:#0000FF"|6 !style="color:#ff00f...'

{|class="wikitable"
|1
!style="color:#0000FF"|2
!style="color:#00FF00"|3
|style="background:#0000FF"|4
!style="color:#ff0000"|5
|style="background:#0000FF"|6
!style="color:#ff00ff"|7
|style="background:#0000FF"|8
|style="background:#00ff00"|9
|style="background:#0000FF"|10
|-
!11
|style="background:#0000FF"|12
!13
|style="background:#0000FF"|14
|style="background:#00ff00"|15
|style="background:#0000FF"|16
!17
|style="background:#0000FF"|18
!19
|style="background:#0000FF"|20
|-
|style="background:#00ff00"|21
|style="background:#0000FF"|22
!23
|style="background:#0000FF"|24
|style="background:#ff0000"|25
|style="background:#0000FF"|26
|style="background:#00ff00"|27
|style="background:#0000FF"|28
!29
|style="background:#0000FF"|30
|-
!31
|style="background:#0000FF"|32
|style="background:#00ff00"|33
|style="background:#0000FF"|34
|style="background:#ff0000"|35
|style="background:#0000FF"|36
!37
|style="background:#0000FF"|38
|style="background:#00ff00"|39
|style="background:#0000FF"|40
|-
!41
|style="background:#0000FF"|42
!43
|style="background:#0000FF"|44
|style="background:#00ff00"|45
|style="background:#0000FF"|46
!47
|style="background:#0000FF"|48
|style="background:#FF00FF"|49
|style="background:#0000FF"|50
|-
|style="background:#00ff00"|51
|style="background:#0000FF"|52
!53
|style="background:#0000FF"|54
|style="background:#ff0000"|55
|style="background:#0000FF"|56
|style="background:#00ff00"|57
|style="background:#0000FF"|58
!59
|style="background:#0000FF"|60
|-
!61
|style="background:#0000FF"|62
|style="background:#00ff00"|63
|style="background:#0000FF"|64
|style="background:#ff0000"|65
|style="background:#0000FF"|66
!67
|style="background:#0000FF"|68
|style="background:#00ff00"|69
|style="background:#0000FF"|70
|-
!71
|style="background:#0000FF"|72
!73
|style="background:#0000FF"|74
|style="background:#00ff00"|75
|style="background:#0000FF"|76
|style="background:#FF00FF"|77
|style="background:#0000FF"|78
!79
|style="background:#0000FF"|80
|-
|style="background:#00ff00"|81
|style="background:#0000FF"|82
!83
|style="background:#0000FF"|84
|style="background:#ff0000"|85
|style="background:#0000FF"|86
|style="background:#00ff00"|87
|style="background:#0000FF"|88
!89
|style="background:#0000FF"|90
|-
|style="background:#FF00FF"|91
|style="background:#0000FF"|92
|style="background:#00ff00"|93
|style="background:#0000FF"|94
|style="background:#ff0000"|95
|style="background:#0000FF"|96
!97
|style="background:#0000FF"|98
|style="background:#00ff00"|99
|style="background:#0000FF"|100
|}

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T13:10:42Z

ClementB: /* Regarding Trotsky */

File talk:Prime number.gif

2009-04-24T13:04:04Z

ClementB: Created page with '#There is an obvious error in this pic (13)!! #the pic isn't an actual sieve, it's just the beginning of an exercise!!! ~~~~'

#There is an obvious error in this pic (13)!!
#the pic isn't an actual sieve, it's just the beginning of an exercise!!!
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:04, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Scope

2009-04-23T20:26:47Z

ClementB: Created page with 'Is this for real? ~~~~'

Is this for real? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:26, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

Puebla

2009-04-23T20:25:02Z

ClementB: founded in 1532

'''Puebla''' is the fourth largest city in [[Mexico]] and is the capital of the state of the same name. Founded in 1532 by Sebastian Ramirez de Fuenleal, archbishop of Santo Domingo, it became see of the bishopric originally created in 1526 at [[Tlaxcala]]<ref>Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911</ref>. On [[Cinco de Mayo|May 5th]], 1862, Mexican forces under General defeated the [[France|French]] army in Puebla. This victory is celebrated every '[[Cinco de Mayo]]'. Puebla is sometimes called 'Puebla de los Angeles' or 'The City of [[Angels]]'. This city is listed as a UNESCO [[World Heritage Site]].

It is also one of the most [[Catholic]] cities in Mexico.

== See also ==

[[Mexican History]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Mexican Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Mexican States]]

Tyrant

2009-04-23T20:12:02Z

ClementB: τύραννος

A '''tyrant''' (Greek: ''τύραννος'' - ''tyrannos'') is a term the [[Greeks]] used to describe a person who seized and held power in violation of the normal laws and traditions of the community. Tyrants appeared in many Greek [[city states]] in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. often taking advantage of the disaffection of the middle class against the old elite.

Today, the word 'tyrant' is used to refer to an unjust and autocratic ruler, who enriches himself or satisfies his lust for [[power]] at the expense of his people. Examples include [[Nicolae Ceausescu]] in [[Romania]] and [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]] in his later years.

== Sources ==

The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History, Bulliet et al, 2005.

[[Category: Ancient Greece]]

Asterix

2009-04-22T20:07:26Z

ClementB: Asterix shouldn't be linked....

'''''The Adventures of Asterix''''' is a series of [[French]] [[comic book]]s written by [[Réne Goscinny]] (story) and [[Albert Uderzo]] (illustrations). The [[storyline]] follows a village in [[Gaul]] 50 B.C., the only village that has not been conquered by the [[Roman Empire|Romans]], thanks to a [[magic]] potion which gives superhuman strength brewed by the village [[druid]]. The story centers around the [[Gaul|Gaulish]] warrior '''Asterix''' and his friend [[Obelix]].

The [[List of Asterix volumes|33 original books]] were originally written in [[French language|French]], but have been translated into numerous other languages, including [[English language|English]], [[Dutch language|Dutch]], [[German language|German]], [[Danish language|Danish]], [[Icelandic language|Icelandic]], [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]], [[Swedish language|Swedish]], [[Finnish language|Finnish]], [[Spanish language|Spanish]], [[Catalan language|Catalan]], [[Basque language|Basque]], [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]], [[Italian language|Italian]], [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]], [[Polish language|Polish]], [[Romanian language|Romanian]], [[Greek language|modern Greek]], [[Turkish language|Turkish]], [[Slovenian language|Slovenian]], [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]], [[Serbian language|Serbian]] and [[Croatian language|Croatian]].

Besides the 33 primary books, there have been [[List of Asterix films|films]] and [[List of Asterix games|games]].

==History of the series==

Astérix was originally a serialised story in the French magazine Pilote. ''[[Asterix the Gaul]]'', the first story in the series, was originally published as a book in 1961. Since then, stories were released each year. After Goscinnys death in 1977, Uderzo continued the series on a less frequent basis. ''[[Asterix and the Falling Sky]]'', the last book to date, was released in 2005.

==Humor==

The humor in the Asterix books centers around [[pun]]s in names, [[stereotype]]s of ancient peoples, and allusions to later events.

===Stereotypes===

In the comics, many things and peoples Asterix and Obelix encounter are exaggerated copies of 20th century things. For example, the phlegmatic British in ''[[Asterix in Britain]]'' drive chariots on the left side of the road, drink warm [[beer]] or hot water with milk (before Asterix brought [[tea]] to [[Britain]]), and serve all their food with mint sauce. Belgians are shown as hearty and athletic, consuming huge amounts of beer and food. The [[Goths]] are unscrupulous and imperialistic, wearing helmets similar to those worn by [[Germany|Germans]] during [[WWI]].

Other elements are also satirized, including paintings, television shows, and 20th century characters. For instance, Britains most famous musicians look remarkably like the [[Beatles]].

===Names===

''This section is about the English names, not the French ones.''

The names in Asterix are not only puns, they end in prefixes different for each tribe. For example, the names of the male Gauls and Belgians end with ''-ix'', for example, the chief of the Gauls is named Vitalstatistix, the village bard is named Cacofonix, the two Belgian chiefs are named Beefix and Brawnix, the proprietor of a Gaulish restaurant in Rome is named Instantmix, and the village druid, who provides potions and medicine, is named Getafix. Female names typically end with ''-a'', such as Impedimenta, Bacteria, and Influenza. British names end with ''-ax'', such as Selectivemploymentax, Hiphiphurrahax, and Valueaddedtax. Gothic names end with ''-ic'', such as Electric, Choleric, and Metric. Roman males' names end with ''-us'' and are often two names: Crismus Bonus, Odious Asparagus, Gracchi Armisurplus, Spurious [[Brontosaurus]], Habeascorpus, and Osseus Humerous. (In ''[[Asterix the Gladiator]]'', a Roman centurion calls to one of his men: "Open up, Sendervictorious! It's me, Appianglorious!--a play on the line in [[God Save the Queen]]''"Send her victorious, happy, and glorious."'') Egyptian names end in ''-is'' such as Edifis and Artifis from ''[[Asterix and Cleopatra]]''. Norman names end in ''-af'' such as Telegraf, Fotograf, Chiffchaf, and Toocleverbyhaf. [[Viking]] names end with ''-ssen'' such as Hareldwillssen.

===Running gags===

There are numerous running gags in Asterix. One of the most famous is [[Obelix]] tapping his head and saying "These [people] are crazy!" whenever he discovers some oddity in culture: the lighthouse at Pharaos, the Roman baths, the Normans search for fear in ''[[Asterix and the Normans]]'', or any other difference. Another is that at the end-of-the-book feast, Cacofonix the bard is usually tied up and gagged to prevent him singing. There are exceptions to this, such as in ''Asterix and the Normans'', when his awful singing routed the Normans.

Another is a band of pirates which appear in almost every book after ''[[Asterix the Gladiator]]''. Whenever Asterix and Obelix meet them, the two Gauls sink the pirate ship. Although the pirates attempt to avoid all Gaulish vessels, inevitably Asterix and Obelix are on board the one they attack. In two books (''[[Asterix in Spain]]'' and ''[[Asterix and the Great Crossing]]'') Asterix and Obelix take all the food on board but leave the ship.

==Characters==

''Main article: [[Characters in Asterix]]''

[[Category: Asterix]]