Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:ConserveATory

2007-10-18T02:33:28Z

ConserveATory:

For those curious, my username is a bit of a Canadian pun- the [[Conservative Party of Canada]] are also known as the Tories. There's a random scare that passes through the nation, so I feel it's our duty to conserve the party and its values. After reading this site for a few days, I feel like a minority since I'm pretty sure I'm the only homosexual.

After some weeks here I've learned this is not a friendly place. Blocks for asking questions, extremely offensive comments from moderators, stunningly partisan bickering.... I'm reconsidering my stay here - only time will tell. As far as I'm concerned, if Wikipedia is the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet, then Conservapedia is the ''Weekly World News''.

Confidence interval

2007-10-13T21:09:14Z

ConserveATory: Creating.

A '''confidence interval''' is a [[mathematical interval]] between two values, based on a parameter. The purpose of the interval is to find the probability that the actual value of a parameter falls within the interval. They are often used to help prove the likelihood of [[causation]]. A "strong" confidence interval will have a well-defined, reasonable range, and the values of the parameter will fall in the interval frequently. While "frequently" is differently defined, it is often accepted as a 95% likelihood (sometimes phrased as "19 out of 20 times").

==Notation==

Confidence intervals can be calculated for any parameter within a statistical population. For this example of notation, assume that ''mu'' is the [[mean]], and mu-tilde is the estimator of mu. The probability that the mean and its estimator are less than some value ''y'' is equal to ''x'', where ''y'' is some non-negative real number, and ''x''ϵ[0,1].

<math>\Pr(|\tilde \mu - \mu| < y)=x</math>

==Example==

Define the following mean estimator:

<math>\tilde \mu=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n X_i}{n}.</math>

Where ''mu-tilde'' has the following [[Gaussian distribution|Gaussian sampling distribution]]

<math>\tilde \mu \sim G(\mu, \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt n})</math>

Assume the standard notation (''sigma'' is the [[standard deviation]], ''n'' is the [[sample size]]). You are given that sigma/sqrt(n) is 67.5. Assume we want to find the probability that the difference between the mean and its estimator is less than 100. Then:

<math>\Pr(|\tilde \mu - \mu| < 100)=2\Pr(\tilde \mu - \mu > 100)</math>

<math>\Pr(\tilde \mu - \mu > 100)</math> 
<math>=1 - \Pr(\tilde \mu - \mu < 100)</math> 
<math>=1 - \Pr(\frac{\tilde \mu - \mu}{\sigma / \sqrt n} > \frac {100}{\sigma / \sqrt n})</math> 
<math>\approx 1 - \phi(\frac{100}{67.5})</math> 
<math>= 0.069</math>, where ''Phi'' is the [[cumulative distribution function]] for the G(0,1) Gaussian distribution.

<math>\Pr(|\tilde \mu - \mu| < 100)=\Pr(-100 < \tilde \mu - \mu < 100)=\Pr(\tilde \mu - 100 < \mu < \tilde \mu + 100)</math> 
<math>=0.138</math>

Then we conclude that there is a 13.8% chance that the average is within the interval <math>(\tilde \mu - 100, \tilde \mu + 100)</math>

In another practice, the confidence interval is used to find the interval as opposed to the probability. In the above process, you are given the probability (say, 95%) that a parameter falls within an interval, and from there, the interval itself must be found. Then, one can conclude that 95% of times, the parameter will fall within a given interval.

User:ConserveATory/test

2007-10-13T21:08:52Z

ConserveATory:

User:ConserveATory/test

2007-10-13T20:50:59Z

ConserveATory: in case the computer dies

Correlation

2007-10-13T19:52:54Z

ConserveATory: Creating.

'''Correlation does not imply causation''' is a phrase used in [[statistics]] to point out that a [[correlation]] between two variables should not imply that one variable has not caused a change in the other. It is a [[logical fallacy]] to assume that correlation implies causation.

The following is a flawed argument:

#Event A occurs in concurrence with Event B
#Therefore, Event A causes Event B

This is flawed because:

#There may be a confounding factor causing A ''and'' B
#B may cause A
#The relationship may be a complete coincidence

==Examples==

#As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks
#High sales of ice cream cause shark attacks

'''Flaw:''' Shark attacks and ice cream sales follow a seasonal pattern. Both rise in the summer months. The seasons are a confounding variable.

#Since the construction of a stadium began in Alaska, the value of your home in Texas has risen
#Stadium construction in Alaska causes higher home values in Texas

'''Flaw:''' This is a coincidence between unrelated variables.

==References==

*[http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html Texas A&M University]

File talk:Wikipedia scandals.jpg

2007-10-11T02:25:06Z

ConserveATory: commenting on RobSmith

Did anyone look at where this graph comes from? The link is:

http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007

This graph appears to be intentionally missleading. It shows only a small portion of the donation history, and on a DAILY BASIS none the less. What the graph fails to point out is that donations (averaged out for the month) from March almost DOUBLED from those of February. And sure, they went back down again, then bounced back up again... but that is how fundraising works... up and down. (Interesting to note, that the day after this graph ends, the donations for the very next day, March 20, were $102,078.64.) Correlation does not always imply causality. This is irresponsible journalism in my oppinion. [[User:Jason|Jason]] 16:55, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:That was a back-dated donation in the middle of March or April. WP cooked the books. That's another unreported scandal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:00, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::If it is unreported, how reliable is it? Do you have acess to WP insider information? If so then fine. If not I think it shouldn't be reported. It's fine to say it's "alleged", but that is different. [[User:Jason|Jason]] 17:17, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::The donation, I have on condition of anonymity, was $100,000. If you subtract $100,000 from the donations of March and April reported on the link above, you find this chart is remarkably accurate. Why a $100,000 donation was backdated to coincide with the decline in donations after the Essjay scandal was publicized, is a question for others to answer. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::::...one would think that Stephen J. Luczo (Chairman of the Board of Seagate Technology) or the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund would complain about Wikipedia arbitrarily backdating their $100k donation...
::::Oh, and "on condition of anonymity" and "true and verifiable" don't really mix well, don't they? Especially with bold claims like that. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's been verified by a reputable source. Stephen J. Luczo & Seagate Technology is something we'll have to look into. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:33, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::Well, the problem is that ''you say'' it's been verified; and ''you'' aren't a reliable source to build an encyclopedia on (...yet :P), especially when it comes to bold accusations (and I'd say that backdating $100k donations is as bold as they get) involving the Foundation and that Luczo fellow there. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:05, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

<--
Who says its an accussation? Who says WikiMedia's website is a "reliable source"? My Lord, you've opened a can of worms that is going nowhere. (Wikipedia, incidently, by it's Atribution policy defines itself, by name, as ''not'' a reliable source). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:Since it's the second time I notice this typo: "Accusation" has one "s" only.
:And I don't know what you'd call it, but I'd call "That was a back-dated donation in the middle of March or April. WP cooked the books. That's another unreported scandal." an accusation.
:Yes, Wikipedia's own disclaimer actually says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on the disclaimer page. Incidentally, this "trustworthy encyclopedia" also says "CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" on its disclaimer page. I don't see what this has to do with WikiMedia, though. Other than doubting by association (I feel vaguely reminded of Clinton and Gay Bomb) again. Oh, and somehow you made two slips: One implied slip from WikiMedia to Wikipedia, and one from "How reliable are you and your anonymous source" to "How reliable is the source this entire graph is based on?"
:If you truly claim that MediaWiki is not a reliable source (and by openly questioning the reliability and by dishing out the accusation of WP/WM tampering the books, you do just that), then the image should be deleted because it's based on likely unreliable data, which was in turn "adjusted" per the claims of an unknown source (the 100k donation is officially dated March 19 - the last data point of the graph). Incidentally, if we stick to the "data is reliable" claim, the graph is fradulent (because the last data point is wrong) and thus should be deleted, too.
:I see it this way:
:*You implicitly claim the data is reliable when you try to prove that the "scandals" were the cause of the fluctuations
:*You implicitly and explicitly claim the data is unreliable when people point out that the graph is either wrong or misleading
:*You claim that you or your anonymous source established that the data was made reliable by singling out where tampering happened.
:I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this bending and twisting. Bold claims are replaced by even bolder ones, and reality warps around your every post. You have fun smearing Wikipedia. I did my duty as an editor by pointing out the extremely shaky ground this all is built on. It's up to a sysop to make a decision. I'm out of this discussion. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:57, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually I was referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3FWikipedia: WP:Reliable sources/Examples/Are wikis reliable sources?], which reads, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." But the author of this same language appears to have an appendage in the wringer at the moment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=160962861&oldid=160957768] over precisely the same conduct, i.e. she wrote the policy, at first refused to enforce it so as to protect an unreputable source, and when forced to enforce the very policy she authored, took a reprisal action against the editor who brought the disparity to her attention.

::And that is not all; the Essjay controversy was born out efforts to coverup this duplicity.

::So when we have evidence WP will begin abiding by its own policies, we may be in a position to cut it some slack & give it the benefit of the doubt. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:52, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:::In the end, you're still making a grand claim without providing any supporting evidence. If I told you that Conservapedia was funneling funds, and I heard it from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, would you believe me? If I made a misleading graph about it, would you consider it gossip and deceit?[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 22:25, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm starting to get confused now! All I want to do is point out two things, then I think I am done:
#According to the [http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007 source page], the amount recieved on March 19th was $764. This graph shows the number going below $500. (??) The next day, (even if you take out the $100,000 that came from "cooking the books") there is still over $2,000 from that day alone. My only point is that this graph seems inacruate to me based on what I am seeing at the source page, and if the source page is compromised then all the more we should question this graph. It is also too small a window to show any kind of meaningful trend in donation reciepts.
#About all this verifing of information... as an encyclopedia, if we want people to take us seriously, we should cite reliable sources. Even on Wikipedia, they require this, and if a page does not cite sources, it will eventually be tagged. They also have this policy that says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Wikipedia is not a crystal ball], meaning it is not a collection of "unverifiable specualtion". If this policy is any different at Conservapedia, then Conservapedia has lost the moral high ground and doesn't have much room to criticize Wikipedia.
And just to clarify, I'm not defending Wikipedia. I just think Conservapedia should be cautious about what it puts out here.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:14, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:ConserveATory

2007-10-04T00:59:50Z

ConserveATory: replying to: /* Question about AFD vote */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:13, 19 September 2007 (EDT)}}

== Wrong... ==

*I think you are wrong, Tory! I am almost certain others have admitted to being Gay as well.....:P --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== Question about AFD vote ==

I cited a medical publication [[MedCast]] which used the term [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] in 2004. I also point out two reference sources which uses the term now. Also, a Canadian medical organization used the term in 2001. Also, MSN ENcarta used the term in 2001 until pressured by homosexual activists. Please review the [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] article again and you will see my sources plus you will see the efforts of liberal gay activist to repress the use of the term [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]. Will you please change your AFD vote after reviewing the article again? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:56, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:No, I won't. Being defined is not the same as being commonly used in medicine. There are sources, such as [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus this one] that point this out. There are much more productive things that you could do that don't involve discussing gay anal intercourse.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Gay Bowel Syndrome

2007-10-03T23:38:38Z

ConserveATory: Suggesting deletion of the article

'''Not family/student friendly!'''

<blockquote>
'''Gay Bowel Syndrome''', which has also been referred to a gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 by a group of [[New York City]] physicians in a private [[Proctology|proctologic]] practice and it describes a number of male [[homosexuality|homosexual]] anorectal disorders that male homosexuals are more apt to encounter. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=946385&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=578386&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9328857&dopt=AbstractPlus</ref> Glen Hastings and Richard Weber in 1993 wrote the following regarding gay bowel disease in the peer reviewed medical journal ''[[American Family Physician]]'': "The 1980s brought a recognition of gay bowel disease and its similarities to inflammatory bowel disease."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n3_v47/ai_13502158/pg_1</ref>
The abstract for the 1976 journal article published in ''[[Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science]]'' entitled ''The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases'' describes gay bowel syndrome in the following manner:
</blockquote>

:::'''Keep''' The article [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] cites a 2004 article by Medscape saying that gay bowel syndrome is still a concern. More importantly, given the lethality of [[HIV]] and its connection with proctitus/gay bowel syndrome the article could save lives.[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v38n2/30832/30832.html?erFrom=-8997763093503343538Guest] I know Wikipedia would definitely censor this article because the liberal gay activists hate the term "gay bowel syndrome" and have been trying to get the medical establishment to not use the term because it strong associates homosexuality with disease. However, I do think that Conservapedia should warn its readers of the dangers of homosexual activity especially since the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:30, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete.''' Everybody already knows that homosexuals are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS and other diseases; there is no reason to belabor the point by inserting pornographic content on a website viewed by many young people. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:31, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I quoted medical journals. There is nothing pornographic about medical terminology. Also, I don't believe that homosexuals know they are at greater risk. The media certainly doesn't tell them this and mainly conservative websites and medical journals and medical websites do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

'''Delete''' because it was abandoned as a term by the medical community in the 1980s. It described symptoms that were not limited to gays, not limited to the bowels, and not actually a syndrome.[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:38, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Ideal (mathematics)

2007-10-01T23:20:57Z

ConserveATory: Creating.

In [[ring theory]], an '''ideal''' is defined as a subset of a ring with the following properties:

#Zero is an element of the ideal
#The ideal is closed under addition
#The product of an element of the ideal and an element of the initial ring is an element of the ideal

Union (mathematics)

2007-09-30T22:27:12Z

ConserveATory: Creating

In [[math]]ematics, a '''union''' of sets is a [[set]] of elements that belong only to the sets. It is denoted A ∪ B and is formally defined as A ∪ B = {x|xϵA OR xϵB}.

User talk:ConserveATory

2007-09-27T23:17:40Z

ConserveATory: ...

Curve

2007-09-27T23:06:07Z

ConserveATory: creating

A '''curve''' is a [[math]]ematical object defined as a one-dimenional, continuous mapping from one interval of [[real number]]s to another.

User talk:ConserveATory

2007-09-27T23:02:19Z

ConserveATory: commenting on TK

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:13, 19 September 2007 (EDT)}}

== Wrong... ==

I think you are wrong, Tory! I am almost certain others have admitted to being sodomites as well.....:P --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I don't like being called a "sodomite".[[User:ConserveATory|ConserveATory]] 19:02, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Rational number

2007-09-21T02:23:33Z

ConserveATory: countability

A '''rational number''' is a quotient of the form <math>\frac{a}{b}</math> where ''a'', ''b'' are [[integer]]s and ''b'' ≠ 0. The set of rational numbers, usually denoted by <math>\mathbb{Q}</math> is an example of a [[totally disconnected set]] that is not [[locally compact]]. The rational numbers are [[countable]]. Rational numbers can be identified by their fractional form, or a terminating or repeating decimal.

[[Category: Mathematics]]

Natural number

2007-09-21T02:22:00Z

ConserveATory: Improving the article

In [[mathematics]], a '''natural number''' is a a number from the set {0,1,2,...} or (1,2,3...}, depending on the context and the reference.<ref>Unfortunately, 0 is sometimes also included in the list of "natural" numbers (Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974), and there seems to be no general agreement about whether to include it. In fact, Ribenboim (1996) states "Let P be a set of natural numbers; whenever convenient, it may be assumed that 0 in P." [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html (Wolfram)] </ref> Natural numbers were used initially for counting ("there are three cows in this field"), but they took on the purpose of ordering as well ("She is the 2nd fastest person alive). The set of natural numbers is [[countably infinite]]- via [[bijection]], this property can be used to prove the countability of the [[integer]]s and [[rational number]]s.

==Reference==
<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

User:ConserveATory

2007-09-21T02:15:38Z

ConserveATory:

Conservative Party of Canada

2007-09-18T18:15:12Z

ConserveATory:

[[Image:649px-Conservative Party of Canada.png|right|thumb]]
The '''Conservative Party of Canada''', colloquially known as the '''Tories''', is a [[Canada|Canadian]] [[political party]], formed after the 2003 amalgamation of the national [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]]. The party united right-of-center Canadians under one common banner and won a [[minority government]] in 2006, ending a 13-year reign by the [[Liberal Party of Canada]]. The current party leader, and [[Prime Minister of Canada]], is the Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]].

After the 1993 defeat of the Canada's only female Prime Minister, [[Kim Campbell]], the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons. Another right-of-center party, the [[Reform Party]], gained 52 seats in that election. In 2000, the Reform Party changed its name to the Canadian Alliance. After a decade of split votes between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the parties merged.

The party is generally supportive of privatization, a smaller federal government, larger provincial governments, closer relations with the [[United States]], [[fiscal conservatism]], [[Canadian Senate|Senate reform]], and a stronger military. The party opposes legalization of [[cannabis]], and held a free-vote on reopening the issue of [[same-sex "marriage"]], which was ultimately defeated. They have also motioned for fixed election dates, raising both supporters and detractors among all Canadian political parties, and for government transparency and accountability.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External links==
* [http://www.conservative.ca/ Conservative Party of Canada official site]
[[category:Political Parties]]
[[category:Canada]]

Conservative Party of Canada

2007-09-18T18:14:36Z

ConserveATory: bracket

[[Image:649px-Conservative Party of Canada.png|right|thumb]]
The '''Conservative Party of Canada''' is a [[Canada|Canadian]] [[political party]], formed after the 2003 amalgamation of the national [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]]. The party united right-of-center Canadians under one common banner and won a [[minority government]] in 2006, ending a 13-year reign by the [[Liberal Party of Canada]]. The current party leader, and [[Prime Minister of Canada]], is the Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]].

After the 1993 defeat of the Canada's only female Prime Minister, [[Kim Campbell]], the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons. Another right-of-center party, the [[Reform Party]], gained 52 seats in that election. In 2000, the Reform Party changed its name to the Canadian Alliance. After a decade of split votes between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the parties merged.

The party is generally supportive of privatization, a smaller federal government, larger provincial governments, closer relations with the [[United States]], [[fiscal conservatism]], [[Canadian Senate|Senate reform]], and a stronger military. The party opposes legalization of [[cannabis]], and held a free-vote on reopening the issue of [[same-sex "marriage"]], which was ultimately defeated. They have also motioned for fixed election dates, raising both supporters and detractors among all Canadian political parties, and for government transparency and accountability.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External links==
* [http://www.conservative.ca/ Conservative Party of Canada official site]
[[category:Political Parties]]
[[category:Canada]]

Conservative Party of Canada

2007-09-18T18:14:21Z

ConserveATory: Cleaning up this article a bit

[[Image:649px-Conservative Party of Canada.png|right|thumb]]
The '''Conservative Party of Canada''' is a [[Canada|Canadian]] [[political party]], formed after the 2003 amalgamation of the national [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]. The party united right-of-center Canadians under one common banner and won a [[minority government]] in 2006, ending a 13-year reign by the [[Liberal Party of Canada]]. The current party leader, and [[Prime Minister of Canada]], is the Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]].

After the 1993 defeat of the Canada's only female Prime Minister, [[Kim Campbell]], the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons. Another right-of-center party, the [[Reform Party]], gained 52 seats in that election. In 2000, the Reform Party changed its name to the Canadian Alliance. After a decade of split votes between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the parties merged.

The party is generally supportive of privatization, a smaller federal government, larger provincial governments, closer relations with the [[United States]], [[fiscal conservatism]], [[Canadian Senate|Senate reform]], and a stronger military. The party opposes legalization of [[cannabis]], and held a free-vote on reopening the issue of [[same-sex "marriage"]], which was ultimately defeated. They have also motioned for fixed election dates, raising both supporters and detractors among all Canadian political parties, and for government transparency and accountability.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External links==
* [http://www.conservative.ca/ Conservative Party of Canada official site]
[[category:Political Parties]]
[[category:Canada]]

Conservative Party of Canada

2007-09-18T17:57:31Z

ConserveATory: changing to reflect the actual articles

[[Image:649px-Conservative Party of Canada.png|right|thumb]]
The '''Conservative Party of Canada''' was formed by an amalgamation of the Progressive-Conservative Party of [[Canada]], and the Canadian Alliance. This effectively united the right-of-center Canadians under one common banner, allowing for much greater success in the most recent election. Its current party leader is [[Stephen Harper]], who is also the current Prime Minister of Canada.

After the defeat of Prime Minister [[Kim Campbell]] and the Progressive-Conservatives in the General Election of 1993, the Progressive-Conservatives were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons. Another right-of-center party, the Reform Party, gained 52 seats in that election. In 2000, the Reform Party changed its name to the "Canadian Alliance." After a decade of proving ineffective as many [[conservative]] Canadians had trouble being represented by a vote split between the Canadian Alliance and the members of the Progressive-Conservatives, the PCs and the Alliance merged in 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

Many [[liberal]]s are critical of the party's views with respect to issues of "social freedom", such as [[same-sex "marriage"]]. The conservatives followed through with their promise to open up the issue of same-sex "marriage" for debate again in the House of Commons. However, as a result, there were no changes to current legislation.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External links==
* [http://www.conservative.ca/ Conservative Party of Canada official site]
[[category:Political Parties]]
[[category:Canada]]

User:ConserveATory

2007-09-18T17:55:46Z

ConserveATory: On my name